Alleged violations of the Posse Comitatus Act, here by AFOSI, must be \u201cwidespread and repeated\u201d to justify suppression. Defendant didn\u2019t show this was. United States v. Salinas, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 28616 (5th Cir. Sept. 9, 2020).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cA detective assigned to a DEA task force signed an affidavit in support of a warrant to search a townhome. The affidavit contained errors and omissions, and a prosecutor submitted it to the magistrate judge without catching or correcting the errors. The judge approved the warrant and the search turned up incriminating evidence against defendant Calvin Carter. He moves to suppress the evidence and, at a minimum, requests a hearing to challenge the warrant under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).\u201d The false statements and the omissions about what was done or not done don\u2019t undermine the probable cause. The search warrant was based on controlled buys. And the good faith exception applies, too. United States v. Carter, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164423 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 9, 2020).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Alleged violations of the Posse Comitatus Act, here by AFOSI, must be \u201cwidespread and repeated\u201d to justify suppression. Defendant didn\u2019t show this was. United States v. Salinas, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 28616 (5th Cir. Sept. 9, 2020). \u201cA detective assigned … Continue reading