Drug Crimes, Substance Abuse Franks Hearing: Probable cause & vague search warrant application followed by a "Rubber Stamping"

[Jess Johnson]

Jurisdiction

Minnesota

1. 
   NEED LEGAL OPINIONS????????
   
   In Leon, the Supreme Court articulated the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, holdingthat evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is nonetheless admissible if theofficer who conducted the search acted in good faith reliance on a search warrant. Id. at 922-23."That [an] officer obtained a warrant is prima facie evidence of good faith." United States v. Elst,579 F.3d 740, 744 (7th Cir. 2009).A defendant may rebut the prima facie evidence of good faith by presenting evidence toestablish that: (1) the issuing judge wholly abandoned his judicial role and failed to perform hisneutral and detached function, serving merely as a rubber stamp for the police; (2) the affidavitsupporting the warrant was so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief inits existence entirely unreasonable; or(3) the issuing judge was misled by information in anaffidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false except for his recklessdisregard of the truth.1)Judge Steven John Wentzell is a former district atty for Kandyohi County and the CEE XI Taskforce in located or a part of the Kandyohi County Sherrifs Department."''He must be neutral and detached, and he must be capable of determining whether probablecause exists for the requested arrest or search.''I have a potential problem with Bill Hudson using a judge he potentially is friends with andhas had serious history with when Wentzell was an assistant county attorney. I feel this couldborderline aninfraction of impartiality or neutrality when considering a search warrant leadinghim to "rubber stamp" or show favoritism towards Deputy Hudson by signing search warrantswith serious probable cause issues to be served on people like myself and then fallin behindthe "good faith" clause to excuse his failings and violations of the 4thamendment, allowingillegally obtained evidence to be admissible in court to the officers advantage.(2) the affidavit supporting the warrant was so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to renderofficial belief in its existence entirely unreasonable;In regards to probable cause issues: This search warrant, then subsequently the secondwarrant of the vehicles, land in an absurd realm lacking valid probable cause. Theydo agarbage pull and acquire a glass bottle of all things and do a field nic test (the garabge has anunknown quantity of contaminants from medications, cat litter, feces and claim that the bottlecomes back positive for the presence of meth but dont wait to have any real laboratorytesting and based off that contaminated test, us it to help sustain probable cause with theirrubber stamping judge. Not only do I challenge the accuracy of the nic test itself but I alsochallenge the officers testing and thevalidity of said testing knowing that the officer failed torule out the potential for contamination previously stated. Hudson clearly doesn't miss a beatexclaiming his brilliance through training with "numerous hours of training and experience indetection and investigation of controlled substance crimes" or his "attendance at several POSTcertified courses taught by the BCA or his experience through class attendance taught by theBCA, which included, but not limited to instruction on drug identification, evidence handling, druginterdiction ect ect"
   
   

 

[mightymoose]

What exactly is your question?

I only skimmed your lengthy post but got the gist of your complaint.

Your suspicion of the relationship between deputy and judge won't go anywhere without significantly more to support it.

Your analysis of the warrant is surely biased. Have you had an attorney or any other independent and reliable source support your claim?

Whatever your goal is here, you need legal counsel to accomplish it. Even if unsuccessful you can raise your issues now and possibly have grounds for appeal later... assuming your arguments have some merit.

 

[Jess Johnson]

I appreciate the constructive criticism.

You are right about the Deputy/Judge. How much of a relationship is needed to show a likelihood of the Judge lacking in neutrality?

My analysis of the warrant is bias as I am the defendant of the case but it is supported by real concerns here. It is not just made up wish/wash I assure you. I can upload photos of the warrant application if you would like.

I am looking for more out of the box thinking and welcome constructive criticism in the process to explore my ability to fight the search warrant, probable cause for the warrant to begin with.

I do have counsel. But that does not inhibit me from reaching out for independent analysis and constructive feedback to the situation.

Jesse

 

[mightymoose]

Your images are blurry, which is for the better. I assume they will be removed since they contain sensitive information.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the warrant or the deputy's reasoning.

The warrant contains the typical elements including the deputy's experience and training. The information listed is sufficient to support that this deputy was familiar with this type of criminal activity and investigation. Despite your perception of favoritism, the deputy does have the required training and could back it up with documentation.

The garbage pull was done once the trash was at the curb. I don't see any issues with that. Indecia with the occupant's name was also pulled from the trash.

The deputy did an initial test that showed the presence of methamphetamine. Personally, I agree that this, coupled with the information he already had about alleged trafficking, is enough to support probable cause for a search of the property and person. Additional testing to be CERTAIN that it was methamphetamine is not necessary to have PROBABLE cause.

This is a very basic and straightforward warrant. I don't see any complex underlying issues. I'm sorry, I don't see a way that you defeat this warrant with the information provided. You should trust your attorney and try to minimize the damage rather than try to escape it.

For what it is worth, as someone who has often authored this sort of warrant, I have never found a judge who did not scrutinize every letter on the page. I have never had a judge deny a warrant request, but never felt I was getting a rubber stamp either. It is because of good work and good training that these warrants are granted, and why they are difficult to defeat.

Just to add, even if the warrant was defeated, if someone on the house was on probation and had search terms the evidence may still be valid, depending on local rules for how those searches are conducted. Having a warrant makes the whole thing a lot cleaner- but they aren't always required. Better to have and not need than to need and not have.

 

[Jess Johnson]

It is NOT because of good work and good training the warrants get signed. For god sakes, I dont think I have EVER heard of a warrant NOT getting signed. The judge signs warrants electronically sometimes in just minutes time and then the police hide behind "Good faith" when their damn training should have been enough to begin with. If he has soo much training as he states in the affidavit why would he test in a contaminated setting when there are many contaminants that can cause the 2 buck nic test to false positive?

This "info" he has from another law enforcement agency sounds like hear-say wrapped up very "official like". How come there wasnt a supporting affidavit to prove it? He had time.

Seems like quite the stretch on probable cause.

 

[army judge]

I do have counsel. But that does not inhibit me from reaching out for independent analysis and constructive feedback to the situation.

The fact that you are represented by counsel PROHIBITS an ethical lawyer from interacting with you.

Good luck, but I must recuse and excuse myself.

 

[Jess Johnson]

Why respond at all then? Thanks

 

[flyingron]

I was talking to the magistrate here that handles most of the search warrants. Most are approved not because of a "rubber stamp" but because the officers know what the essential parts of it are and don't waste time submitting things that won't be approved. He looks for specific things in the warrant, and won't hesitate to kick it back if the elements are missing.

Obviously, we don't have the information to tell for sure if the search is suppressible, and it's in your best interest NOT to provide such information on the Internet where they are readily discoverable by the state (and believe me it has happened). Your attorney has privilege about what you tell him. This board does not.

 

[mightymoose]

and won't hesitate to kick it back if the elements are missing.

I know of one instance where the judge rejected the warrant due to a spelling error.
Some certainly have a reputation of being harder to please than others.
Personally, I like the ones with that tougher reputation. When they sign off on my warrant it adds a lot of confidence to the pending search.