{"id":32545,"date":"2018-04-06T06:15:46","date_gmt":"2018-04-06T11:15:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=32545"},"modified":"2018-04-06T06:15:46","modified_gmt":"2018-04-06T11:15:46","slug":"s-d-ohio-this-sw-affidavit-was-adequate-and-different-than-co-defs-sw-affidavit-where-it-was-suppressed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=32545","title":{"rendered":"S.D.Ohio: This SW affidavit was adequate and different than co-def&#8217;s SW affidavit where it was suppressed"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The affidavit for the search warrant as to this defendant adequately demonstrated probable cause. The fact the codefendant\u2019s search warrant lacked probable cause isn\u2019t binding on this search warrant. United States v. Damondo, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57204 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 4, 2018).<\/p>\n<p>The child pornography search warrant here was not issued without probable cause, nor was it not particular. \u201cThe warrant detailed the types of items to be seized at Carroll&#8217;s home, all of which were reasonably tailored to the child pornography investigation. Carroll contends that the warrant permitted a general search of his home, but the warrant afforded the officers little latitude when it authorized the seizure of computers, related storage devices, and other media which might contain evidence of child pornography. The warrant was supported by probable cause, and the warrant reasonably described the place to be searched and the items to be seized. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the motion to suppress the evidence seized during its execution.\u201d <a href=\"http:\/\/media.ca11.uscourts.gov\/opinions\/pub\/files\/201616652.pdf\">United States v. Carroll<\/a>, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 8628 (11th Cir. Apr. 5, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The affidavit for the search warrant as to this defendant adequately demonstrated probable cause. The fact the codefendant\u2019s search warrant lacked probable cause isn\u2019t binding on this search warrant. United States v. Damondo, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57204 (S.D. Ohio &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=32545\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[66,65],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-32545","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-burden-of-proof","category-particularity"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32545","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\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=32545"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32545\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":32546,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32545\/revisions\/32546"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=32545"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=32545"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=32545"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}