The failure of the officer to sign the affidavit after he was sworn did not void the warrant. It actually was issued on \u201coath or affirmation.\u201d United States v. Williamson, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77703 (D. Kan. March 18, 2014), adopted in part 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76663 (D. Kan. June 5, 2014).<\/p>\n
On direct and cross, the best the officer could come up with was officer safety and a hunch of criminal activity to justify defendant\u2019s frisk as an alleged drug courier. After \u201csoftball questions\u201d from the court the officer still couldn\u2019t get past his \u201chunch.\u201d He was an officer with 22 years experience and should by now know what Terry requires. After a fifteen minute recess and an apparent effort at rehabilitation, the officer then came up with something real, but it isn\u2019t good enough. \u201cAccordingly, considering the totality of the circumstances in this case, with the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, the numerous inconsistencies in the testimony and evidence, and the determinations of the credibility of the witnesses, the court concludes that Detectives Martinez and Cox did not have reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot before detaining and patting down Williams.\u201d [The court went to great lengths to explain why this testimony failed to measure up.] United States v. Berry, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77980 (N.D. Tex. June 9, 2014).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The failure of the officer to sign the affidavit after he was sworn did not void the warrant. It actually was issued on \u201coath or affirmation.\u201d United States v. Williamson, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77703 (D. Kan. March 18, 2014), … Continue reading