TN: Typo of street number of location of car to be searched could be overlooked when the car was still parked

Defendant was a suspect in a vehicular homicide. Her car with pedestrian damage was found parked in the driveway of her house at 207 Port Drive in Hamilton County. There was a typo on the street number despite the warrant and affidavit being typed in the car outside for 209 Port Drive. The city wasn’t listed, but there was proof there was only one Port Drive in the county. The key was the car in the driveway, and that was particularly described enough, despite the argument the car could have been moved. The officer saw the car and the house, and the correct place was searched. State v. Hinds, 2023 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 293 (Aug. 11, 2023).

Information in the affidavit for warrant about the exact owner(s) of the property to be searched was incorrect, but it wasn’t intentional, reckless, or material to probable cause. “The Seventh Circuit has instructed that the requirement that a search warrant affidavit must not include false statement ‘does not mean that every fact in the affidavit must turn out to be correct.’” The officer relied on the assessor’s records. Finally, it wasn’t even material. United States v. Phelps, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140228 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 11, 2023).*

Excluding the challenged facts, there still was probable cause for the warrant. United States v. Locket, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139857 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2023).*

Defendant was a marijuana dispensary security guard accused of misconduct with the product. There was probable cause for his arrest on state law of maintaining a drug premises, but the good faith exception applied anyway. United States v. Barrera, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139996 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Particularity, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.