Search warrant for an entire building of 12 apartments was valid under the good faith exception. There was probable cause for defendant\u2019s apartment, but the police couldn\u2019t be sure which it was. United States v. Montijo-Gonzalez, 978 F. Supp. 2d 95 (D. P.R. 2013):
\n<\/p>\n
Defendant seeks suppression of the firearm seized during the search of Apartment 62 because the search warrant makes reference to Building 7 of the Zorrilla Public Housing without particularly describing Apartment 62. The Government questioned Defendant’s challenge of the warrant for lack of standing because Defendant is not the lessee of Apartment 62 and he failed to show that he was an overnight guest at Apartment 62. In this respect, the Magistrate Judge held that Defendant’s assertions as to being a guest at Apartment 62 were unsupported, and thus, Defendant failed to demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy that would give him standing to challenge the validity of the search warrant. Nonetheless, the Magistrate Judge sought other grounds that allowed him to make a ruling on Defendant’s motion to suppress.<\/p>\n
After analyzing the record of the instant case, the Magistrate Judge found that probable cause was clearly established as to the entrance areas of Building 7 based on the testimony of the police officers and that of the internal security employee of the Department of Housing. In the instant case, police officers described the results of their surveillance operation of Building 7; of the testimony of the “countless buyers” that were arrested during the surveillance period who were observed entering and exiting Building 7 with drug or drug paraphernalia in their possession (Docket No. 47). Thus, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the search warrant was valid as to the search of Building 7 of the Zorrilla Public Housing.<\/p>\n
The Magistrate Judge also found valid justification of the search of the twelve individual apartments of Building 7, including Apartment 62, under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The Magistrate Judge reasoned that, although Defendant raises “legitimate concerns regarding the existence of probable cause for the [individual] apartment themselves,” the conclusion reached by police officers as to the control exercised over the entire building on the placement of the illegal gates; the gates’ use in the alleged drug transactions; and the constraints placed on access to other floors of Building 7 precludes application of the exclusionary rule. In reaching this determination, the Magistrate Judge found no clear indication that the police officers’ conduct was “so ‘flagrant’ or ‘culpable’ in violating Fourth Amendment rights as to compel suppression.” (Docket No. 47, page 12 (quoting United States v. Clark, 638 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2011)).<\/p>\n
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion. In the instant case, the record shows that the police officers acted within the scope of the warrant in searching Apartment 62, which is included within the “twelve apartments [of Building 7], Apartments 57 to 68” (Docket No. 43), and that the officers reasonably presumed the warrant to be valid based on their earlier observations during surveillance.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading