Failure to timely return warrant inventory was not prejudicial and would not lead to suppression

Eleven state search warrants were executed in Omaha, and the case went federal. First came a Franks challenge that was rejected because of negligent misstatements that did not affect probable cause. Second, some defendants did not have standing as to some of the places searched. Third, on the four corners of the affidavits, there was probable cause. Fourth, typo as to one address in the warrant was not material where the affidavit which was correct was attached and the correct place was searched. Fifth, the no-knock warrants issued here were justified on facts, but Hudson foreclosed application of the exclusionary rule. Sixth, nighttime search warrants for storage buildings were sought so all the searches would not be compromised by witnesses [nighttime search rule is really designed to protect occupants of home, not an unoccupied storage building]. Seventh, one warrant return was a day late, and there was no prejudice from it. Eighth, one defendant was stopped to prevent compromising one of the searches, and she validly consented, despite the alleged illegal search. Ninth, search of an impounded vehicle intended for forfeiture produced 250 lbs of marijuana, and it was validly searched. Tenth, the officers objectively relied on the warrants for good faith exception purposes. United States v. Giles, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95099 (D. Neb. November 17, 2006) (U.S.M.J.’s R&R).

Defendant was asked for consent and declined, but was allowed to go inside to get a sweatshirt on, and he was followed in by the officer. Inside, the officer asked for consent again, and got it. The court found the consent voluntary on the totality. United States v. Lizardo-Figueroa, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8274 (D. Kan. January 22, 2007).*

2255 petitioner’s waiver of all rights during guilty plea was a waiver of his search claim. The court finds dubious that he would have gone to trial if he won the motion. Also, his father’s after-the-fact affidavit that he was coerced into consent was hardly credible. United States v. Gonzales, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8112 (S.D. Tex. January 14, 2007):

As an initial matter, the after-the-fact claim of duress from the defendant’s father is of questionable validity. It is curious that Gonzales never brought the issue to the Court’s attention during his criminal proceedings, despite the fact that he corrected what he perceived as other misstatements. … At no point, however, did Gonzales object to the assertion that his father had consented to the second search of the vehicle. Thus, assuming the veracity of Gonzales, Sr.’s affidavit, it is unclear whether Gonzales himself even knew about the circumstances of the second search prior to entering his plea.

Officer stopped a car in an area known for teenage drinking, and the defendant got out of the car with marijuana residue on his pants. This was probable cause for a search of the person, and defendant’s reliance on Terry was misplaced. State v. Hunter, 949 So. 2d 649 (3d Cir. 2007).