UT: Material change in circumstances found before warrant served should go back to magistrate, but this wasn’t material

Defendant was suspected of attempted video voyeurism, and a search warrant was issued for his gray cell phone. Shortly thereafter, it was discovered that was the wrong phone because it was a white one. Under plain error review, the warrant for neither phone was so overbroad that it should be suppressed without the court being asked. The probable cause for the first phone had not dissipated by the time the warrant had been executed despite the new information. The better practice is to return to the magistrate with the new information and seek clarification. See, e.g., United States v. Marin-Buitrago, 734 F.2d 889 (2d Cir. 1984) (the change in information must be material). This wasn’t material. State v. Hoffman, 2021 UT App 143, 2021 Utah App. LEXIS 145 (Dec. 23, 2021).

“The record establishes that the officers’ entry into and protective sweep of Garza’s sister’s home was valid both because they had a reasonable suspicion to believe the arrest warrant could be executed there and because the owner gave consent for them to enter.” Their plain view resulted in a search warrant. United States v. Garza, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 38072 (5th Cir. Dec. 23, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Neutral and detached magistrate, Plain view, feel, smell, Warrant execution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.