US v. Darosa: A metal and jewelry store in Charlotte was robbed at gunpoint. The owner of the shop said he’d seen a man “in a black mask and gloves at the door . . . writing in a small, black notebook.” In addition to taking some merchandise from the store, the robber also took the owner’s backpack, which contained a firearm. The notebook was left behind and seized at the scene. Police eventually got a warrant to search Darosa’s home, where they found incriminating evidence (including the stolen firearm). After unsuccessfully moving to suppress the evidence found during that search, Darosa was convicted at trial.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Darosa’s conviction. Specifically, with regard to the search warrant, the court found it was supported by probable cause. Darosa argued that the warrant was largely based on a fingerprint found on the notebook and that was insufficient, given the court’s prior decisions cautioning reliance on fingerprints on easily moveable objects. The court agreed that caution was appropriate, but noted that those cases involved sufficiency of the evidence at trial, and thus proof beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than the much lower burden of probable cause. Thus, it did not render the warrant insufficient. Even if it had, good faith would have saved its execution.
No comments:
Post a Comment