Defendant was charged as a co-conspirator in a drug conspiracy involving a warehouse. He makes no effort to show his individual standing, and being a co-conspirator isn\u2019t enough. United States v. Galecki, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185667 (D. Nev. Sept. 19, 2016) (see Treatise \u00a7 4.18 n.22).<\/p>\n
\u201cTo be sure, the Affidavit could have been more explicit about the link to John Avenue. But, as indicated, the Affidavit need not be a model of perfection to pass constitutional muster. The Affidavit recounts an extensive investigation linking the defendants to cocaine distribution. The issuing judge was entitled to infer from the Affidavit that contraband would be found at the John Avenue residence, a location that was frequented by Enixae and the other defendants. [\u00b6] Even if the search warrant were not supported by probable cause, this would not end the inquiry. Deterrence “is not achieved through the suppression of evidence obtained by ‘an officer acting with objective good faith,'” pursuant to a search warrant issued by a judicial officer.\u201d This was all in good faith. United States v. Villapando, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51698 (D. Md. April 5, 2017).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant was charged as a co-conspirator in a drug conspiracy involving a warehouse. He makes no effort to show his individual standing, and being a co-conspirator isn\u2019t enough. United States v. Galecki, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185667 (D. Nev. Sept. … Continue reading