MS: One of two SWs for def’s business was accidentally destroyed but not in bad faith; officers getting second SW were justified

Here there were two search warrants: One for suite E and another for both suites D & E to be sure they were searching the right premises. Execution of the suite E warrant led officers to get another for both. (a) Then, the suite E warrant was accidently destroyed. The trial court found that it existed at the time of the search and was valid, and it was destroyed without bad faith. (b) The execution of the warrant was reasonable and the search was valid. (c) The issuing judge wrote in the time of the first warrant because he thought it related back. The failure to have the exact time for the combined warrant was neither error nor bad faith. (d) Two affiants were listed in the affidavit but only one appeared to sign it. This also was not error because it was signed under oath. Moore v. State, 2024 Miss. App. LEXIS 1 (Jan. 2, 2024):

Moore offers a smorgasbord of complaints concerning law enforcement’s actions in obtaining, executing, and returning the search warrants in this case. Moore also includes complaints concerning Judge Quimby’s actions. To support his contention that “the fruits of the search should have been suppressed,” he cites United States Supreme Court cases but fails to explain how the holdings in those cases aid his cause. [¶] … Moore has failed to cite authority for several of his allegations in this assignment and does not “develop the argument in a meaningful way” to support his claim that all the evidence should have been suppressed. It appears that he is claiming both a Fourth Amendment violation and a due process violation. In any event, we will address the issues he raises on appeal.

. . .

After the officers entered the business and realized the problem with the warrant, they stopped their search and obtained a warrant covering both suites. There were simple mistakes made in the process of the issuance of the two search warrants; however, the trial judge correctly found that the mistakes did not violate Moore’s constitutional rights.

This entry was posted in Reasonableness, Warrant execution, Warrant papers. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.