order denying motions to suppress and dismiss - University of Illinois ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1994). The purpose of the requirement is to prevent a “general, exploratory rummaging.” Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 467, 91 S.Ct. 2022 (1971). Agent Neirinckx testified that Attachment A mistakenly indicated the hallway was to the “West of suite 8B.” Agent Neirinckx, however, knew exactly where the hallway to be searched was located. The mistake had no adverse impact upon the Defendants. The hallway to the “West of suite 8B” was the main hallway. Nothing belonging to the Defendants was located in that hallway which the public used to access entrances to the various businesses located on the basement floor of this commercial building. Additionally, the area to be searched was, in effect, an extension of the main hallway and adjacent thereto. Any error in the use of the term “West” rather than “North” could not have misled the Magistrate Judge issuing the search warrant in light of all the detailed information provided concerning the actual area to be searched. 3. Execution Of Warrant In 2005, Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(f)(3) provided that: The officer executing the warrant must: (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom, or from whose premises, the property was taken; or (B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place where the officer took the property. Agent Neirinckx served the warrant and the receipt on Ray Guerra, the landlord of the Post Falls Professional Center. The search was not executed until 5:15 p.m., after the normal close of business for most offices. Defendants contend Agent Neirinckx acted with intentional and deliberate disregard of Rule 41(f)(3) and that this is a violation of the Fourth Amendment because a copy of the search warrant was served on the landlord who did not own any of the property that was taken, and the agent knew well whose property was taken. ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS AND DISMISS - 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The policies underlying the warrant requirement include “providing the property owner assurance of the lawful authority of the executing officer, his need to search, and the limits of his power to search.” United States v. Celestine, 324 th F.3d 1095, 1100-01 (9 Cir. 2003). “[A]bsent exigent circumstances, if a person is present at the search of her premises, [Rule 41(f)] requires officers to give her a complete copy of the warrant at the outset of the search.” United States v. Gantt, th 194 F.3d 987, 1005 (9 Cir. 1999). In the case at bar, there was no violation of Rule 41(f)(3). Copies of the warrant and receipt were served on Ray Guerra, “the person . . . from whose premises[] the property was taken.” The boxes were not located in Suite 8B, but in a common public hallway in the Post Falls Professional Center. Defendants leased Suite 8B. They did not lease the hallway and so the hallway does not qualify as their “premises.” A plain reading of Rule 41(f)(3) does not, by its terms, require the warrant and receipt to have been served on the tenant of Suite 8B or an employee who worked there. The court has no authority to add such a provision under the guise of legal interpretation, particularly in the absence of any case law to the contrary. Moreover, a finding that there is no Rule 41(f)(3) violation is consistent with the finding that Defendants had no reasonable 6 expectation of privacy in the hallway. 4. Inventory Requirements In 2005, Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(f)(2) provided: 6 Likewise, the fact Defendants had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the hallway renders insignificant the fact the warrant was executed after the close of business. There is some question whether Guerra was served with Attachment A and Attachment B to the warrant. Guerra, however, is the only one who would have standing to assert any such deficiency. ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS AND DISMISS - 11
Page 1 and 2: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 3 and 4: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 5 and 6: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 7 and 8: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 9: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 13 and 14: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 15 and 16: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 17 and 18: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 19 and 20: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 21 and 22: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 23 and 24: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 25 and 26: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 27: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

order denying motions to suppress and dismiss - University of Illinois ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?