{"id":1496,"date":"2008-04-06T18:41:31","date_gmt":"2007-11-02T09:06:15","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-11-03T17:02:14","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1496","title":{"rendered":"Judge allegedly aware of drug activities by representing defendant’s husband 11 years earlier was not shown to be not neutral and detached"},"content":{"rendered":"

Judge who previously represented defendant’s husband more than a decade earlier who issued search warrant for her property was not shown to be not neutral and detached. United States v. Barry-Scott<\/a>, 251 Fed. Appx. 983, 2007 FED App. 0758N (6th Cir. 2007) (unpublished):<\/p>\n

Barry-Scott also appeals the district court’s denial of her motion to suppress the search of her residence, arguing that the judge who issued the warrant was not neutral and detached because he previously represented her and her husband around 1994-95 and was aware of their drug activities. The Government argues that the judge was sufficiently neutral and detached and, in any event, the good faith exception would apply even if the warrant were lacking.<\/p>\n

. . .<\/p>\n

In this case, the evidence seized is admissible because the record does not establish that the judge was not neutral and detached and, even if he were not, the warrant was sufficiently grounded in probable cause for the officers to reasonably rely upon it. Barry-Scott has not shown that the judge had any specific personal knowledge of her or her husband that was detrimental to her or that had any impact on his issuance of the warrant. Neither has Barry-Scott shown that the judge had a personal, pecuniary or substantial interest in the outcome of the search or that he was too closely tied to the functions of law enforcement. Without such evidence, there is nothing to suggest that the judge abandoned his role as a neutral and detached judicial officer. Thus, the decision of the district court based upon these same factors was not clearly erroneous.<\/p>\n

However, even if it were shown that the judge was not neutral and detached, the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule would apply. The warrant was based upon a three-month investigation that included controlled buys, which were recorded and some of which were witnessed by the officer requesting the warrant. The warrant on its face, to a reasonable officer, was sufficient to support a finding of probable cause.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

During appellant’s four minute traffic stop, during which the computer check was completed, the defendant validly consented to a search of his vehicle which produced cash. United States v. Huerta<\/a>, 252 Fed. Appx. 694 (5th Cir. 2007)* (unpublished).<\/p>\n

Reasonable suspicion was based on excessive nervousness plus driving a rental car 1200 miles to see her family and return in one day. United States v. Contreras<\/a>, 506 F.3d 1031 (10th Cir. 2007).*<\/p>\n

Protective sweep of apartment occurred while the police were obtaining a warrant, and the product of the protective sweep did make it into the affidavit for the warrant, so the search would not be suppressed. Commonwealth v. Avellar<\/a>, 70 Mass. App. Ct. 608, 875 N.E.2d 539 (2007).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1496","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1496","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1496"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1496\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1496"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1496"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1496"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}