CA5: A complete investigation before a SW application is sought isn’t required

A search warrant application isn’t defective because the officers didn’t do a more complete investigation. The constitution doesn’t require that. Miller v. Salvaggio, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 31833 (5th Cir. Dec. 16, 2024):

Miller failed to provide the panel with any authority showing that an otherwise proper warrant application is objectively unreasonable if officers could have taken additional, pre-warrant steps to confirm or dispel the facts underlying the application. Indeed, an officer can generally take additional steps to confirm or deny facts underlying a warrant application, but, as the Supreme Court has recognized, time can pass between the facts described in an affidavit supporting probable cause and the issuance of a warrant. See United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90, 95 n.2 (2006) (citing United States v. Wagner, 989 F.2d 69, 75 (2d Cir. 1993)). This bolsters the proposition that police officers do not need to exhaust all possible fact-finding to confirm or dispel their suspicions before seeking a warrant.

This court has long recognized that an officer submitting a warrant application need not have firsthand knowledge of all the facts underlying the application. United States v. Holmes, 537 F.2d 227, 235-36 (5th Cir. 1976) (collecting cases showing there is “ample” support for the proposition that “personal firsthand observations of an affiant government agent are not required for the supporting affidavit” and, in fact, such affidavits may be based on hearsay, among other things). Therefore, the fact that the officer who drafted the investigative report (Vasquez) and the officer who signed the affidavits based on that report (King) relied on secondhand information does not mean that the warrant itself lacked probable cause.