S.D.N.Y.: SW not based on mere speculation

Defendant argues the search warrant was based on speculation, but it wasn’t. United States v. Savage, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138078 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2026)*:

Far from speculative, the detective’s affidavit sets forth a detailed, chronological account of the defendant’s movements in the hours surrounding the two murders. That account began with surveillance footage placing the defendant in the immediate vicinity of the victims at a bodega on Morris Avenue and East 168th Street in the early morning hours of December 26, 2021. At approximately 3:03 a.m., a person the detective identified as the defendant entered the bodega, made a purchase, and exited. (Dkt. 22-1 at 3). At the time, and as noted by the affidavit, he was wearing a black and yellow bubble jacket, a gray knit cap, black high-top sneakers, and jeans. (Id. at 4).

The affidavit then tracked the defendant directly to the subject premises at 1243 Findlay Avenue. At approximately 3:27 a.m., the defendant was observed entering the subject premises. (Id). Critically—and contrary to the defendant’s assertion—the affidavit did not obscure what happened next; it expressly stated that at approximately 4:01 a.m., “the individual believed to be Clifton Savage” exited 1243 Findlay Avenue wearing different clothing—a dark blue hooded sweatshirt and dark blue sweatpants. The person that the detective identified as Savage was wearing the same black high-top sneakers but was no longer wearing jeans or a black and yellow bubble jacket, which is what he was wearing before he entered 1243 Findlay Avenue. (Id.).