CA9: Joint Cambodian-U.S. search unlawful under Cambodian law not unlawful here; exclusionary rule not applied

Defendant was the subject of a joint raid in Cambodia by local and U.S. officers. The search of defendant’s room was held unlawful under Cambodian law because there was no written consent of the owner, something with no counterpart in U.S. law. Therefore, the exclusionary rule would not be applied. United States v. Boyajian, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 14371 (9th Cir. June 9, 2023).

“The specified categories of items listed in the warrant are sufficiently particular and not overly broad. Notably, each reflect the common tools and recognized practices used by drug traffickers and focus on evidence closely related to Sandalo’s suspected drug trafficking activity. To the extent that they may encompass more, the categories are well within the discretion we afford law enforcement in listing the items to be seized.” Also, defendant doesn’t overcome the government’s good faith exception argument. A second search of an in-law apartment within the dwelling to be searched allegedly occurred then or four days later. If so, what’s the relevance to the search of his premises? United States v. Sandalo, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 14242 (2d Cir. June 8, 2023).*

In a related case, Sandalo’s Franks challenge fails. Even if the challenged statements were not considered, there still was probable cause. United States v. Sandalo, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 14245 (2d Cir. June 8, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Conflict of laws, Exclusionary rule, Foreign searches, Franks doctrine, Particularity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.