CA3: Not plain error to fail to exclude potential prejudicial testimony about risk of violence in execution of SW

Testimony about how a search warrant was executed as it was could have prejudiced defendant by revealing the government thought he was violent before arrest. It was not, however, plain error on this record without an objection. United States v. Gibson, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 17039 (3d Cir. June 21, 2022).

“As discussed below, the Court concludes that the search warrant not only lacked probable cause, it lacked any indicia of probable cause which is required for the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The Court also concludes that the inevitable discovery doctrine does not apply based on a federal search warrant obtained a year after the seizure of the cell phone. Relatedly, the Court concludes that suppression is also warranted based on the unreasonable delay between the seizure of the phone and when the government obtained the federal search warrant. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the evidence recovered from search of the cell phone be suppressed.” United States v. Williams, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108641 (D.Ariz. May 10, 2022),* adopted, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108509 (D. Ariz. June 16, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Admissibility of evidence, Good faith exception, Warrant execution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.