Blanket Suppression Not Needed Despite Cop's Bad Acts

The remedy for instances where officers seize items not listed in a warrant is suppression of the improperly seized items, not suppression of all of the evidence.

 

United States v. Webster, 2016 BL 840, 10th Cir., No. 15-3027, 1/5/16

    The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that drugs and guns seized during the execution of a valid search warrant do not need to be suppressed merely because some of the officers took advantage of the situation to steal an iPhone, a PlayStation, and other items.

    The court said that the remedy for instances where officers seize items not listed in a warrant is suppression of the improperly seized items, not suppression of all of the evidence. The court went on to say that blanket suppression is only called for in those very rare instances where officers disregard the limitations of a warrant flagrantly, turning the search into a fishing expedition.

    In United States v. Medlin, the court ordered blanket suppression of all of the evidence, not just the illegally seized items, because officers exhibited "flagrant disregard" for the terms of the warrant and took more than 660 items not named in the warrant.

    The court here distinguished indicating that the officers did not use the warrant as a fishing expedition, but instead pocketed only four items. The court pointed to the fact that in Medlin, all of the police were in on it, but here only a couple of the officers were involved in the wrongdoing.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/United_States_v_Webster_No_153027_2016_BL_840_10th_Cir_Jan_05_201?1453128513