LA5: SW support was thin, but def didn’t carry burden to overcome presumption of validity

Here the affidavit had a gratuitous statement that there were federal wiretaps, but they didn’t involve defendant. Still, it made it into the affidavit for warrant along with identification information. There were also observations of him going into suspect premises. The court finds there was probable cause in substantial part because defendant carried the burden on overcoming the presumption of validity of the warrant. State v. Lampton, 2024 La. App. LEXIS 1734 (La. App. 5 Cir. Oct. 22, 2024). The best one can say is that this was thin “but [barely] good enough for government work”:

After reviewing the affidavit, we find there are sufficient facts within its four corners to establish probable cause for issuing the warrant to search Lampton’s residence—even if we were to excise the information referencing the CI’s identification of Lampton and the statement regarding the federal wiretaps. Even if the detective’s use of a single photo was “suggestive” as argued by Lampton, there was no substantial likelihood of misidentification; the CI knew him. Also, Biondolillo’s investigation corroborated the CI’s identification of Lampton. Although Lampton contends that Biondolillo falsely swore in his affidavit regarding the federal wiretaps based on his testimony that Lampton’s name was not heard, nor did he speak, during any of the recordings, we disagree. We find no fabrication in Biondolillo’s statement or that it was included in the affidavit to falsely mislead the magistrate. Instead, we find that it was merely a statement made regarding a broader investigation of criminal activity that included the wiretaps, not that the investigation of Lampton was based solely on the wiretaps.

. . .

Even if we were to excise the allegedly false statements and were to retest the affidavit, we find that it establishes probable cause for the search warrant in this case. Specifically, the affidavit establishes that during surveillance of Lampton’s residence, officers saw Lampton exit the apartment and throw a trash bag into a dumpster, which they had just observed being emptied by IV Waste. Upon retrieving the bag from the dumpster, officers discovered three empty wrappers used for kilos packaging, and immediately recognized a smell consistent with the odor of heroin/fentanyl. We find that the information officers obtained through the task force’s investigation and the surveillance of Lampton’s residence, as well as the evidence recovered from the bag Lampton threw into the dumpster, provided sufficient evidence to determine that there was probable cause for the issuance of a warrant for the search of Lampton’s residence.

This entry was posted in Burden of proof, Probable cause, Suppression hearings. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.