Project One Search Warrant Draft You Are Officer Brutus

Project One Search Warrant Draftyou Are Officer Brutus Using The Fol

Draft an application/affidavit for a search warrant, search warrant and return for any applicable place, person or motor vehicle. For purposes of the exercise assume the application/affidavit will be presented to me, Judge Solomon Wise, Judge of the District Court of Maryland for Chesapeake County. Submit a 2-3 page paper answering the following questions and citing applicable case law to support your opinions.

a. Assuming Officer Brutus only had the information set forth in paragraphs #1 through #4 below, would he have probable cause for a the search warrant? Why or why not?

b. Assuming the warrant was signed by the Judge and it was later determined that probable cause was lacking, would the evidence that was seized be suppressed by the court? Why or why not?

c. What, if any, issues do you see regarding the credibility of the informant?

d. Assuming Officer Brutus now has the information set forth in paragraphs #1 through #5 below, would he have probable cause for a the search warrant? Why or why not?

Fact Pattern 1. On January 1, 2018, Officer Carl Brutus received an anonymous tip that Samantha Bee lived in a house at 123 Joppa Road and was selling counterfeit Louis Vuitton.

2. Officer Brutus completed the 26 week Police Academy. During the academy, he had 40 hours of instruction specifically related to identification of counterfeit goods. He has been an officer for over 30 years and has been assigned as an investigator in the Economic Crime Division for the last 10 years. Over the last 10 years, he has received additional training with regard to counterfeit goods, specifically fake Louis Vuitton hand bags, clutches and purses; Counterfeit goods Training Center Basic Drug Identification Course; and the "Top Fakes" basic counterfeit investigators school hosted by the National Retail Association and the State Police. He has made hundreds of arrests for counterfeit goods and has written numerous counterfeit-related search and seizure warrants and participated in the execution of many, including those related to the manufacturing and distribution of counterfeit goods.

3. Officer Brutus enlisted an informant to check out the house and try to buy some counterfeit goods. The informant has no track record working for the police but the prosecutor referred him to Brutus because the informant wanted to help reduce a possible arson sentence.

4. The informant came back a few days later and told Brutus that on March 15th he saw Bee and another woman carry several large boxes with expensive handbags piled on top into the house and drag two other bags full of Louis Vuitton merchandise a BMW (a 2018 4 series) parked on the street in front of the house. (Officer Brutus later runs the tag and the car is registered to Samantha Bee). The informant tried to buy some handbags and purses that evening and as soon as he entered the house he saw bags in opaque plastic bags. Bee commented she had an unlimited supply of counterfeit goods from a place in New York City, but her credit card machine was not working.

5. Based on this informant on March 17th, Officer Brutus pulled Bee’s UPS and FedEx delivery information, as well her EZPass toll records. All three sources showed an abnormal amount of packages from and vehicle travel to New York City. Officer Brutus then drove to Bee’s house saw the BMW parked on the street. Officer Brutus surveilled the location and saw Bee return from a trip carrying a Louis Vuitton handbag. Officer Brutus reviewed all the evidence and decides to get a warrant. Today is July 1st and a check of Bee’s bank accounts show deposits in cash and through a credit card machine from $1000 to $5000 a week. Bee does not appear to have other employment as confirmed by the State Unemployment Office. Bee receives from the State $1500 a month which matches deposits made into Samantha Bee’s account.

Paper For Above instruction

In criminal investigations, probable cause is a fundamental legal standard used to justify search warrants and arrests. The scenario involving Officer Brutus presents a complex evaluation of whether sufficient probable cause exists to support a search warrant based on the information available at different points in time.

Analysis Based on Paragraphs 1-4

The initial information provided by the anonymous tip claims that Samantha Bee lives at 123 Joppa Road and is selling counterfeit Louis Vuitton goods. Officer Brutus’s extensive training and experience, including specialized training in counterfeit identification and prior arrest history, bolster his capability to recognize counterfeit goods. Nonetheless, the standard of probable cause requires that the officer has specific, articulable facts indicating criminal activity, not just a suspicion or general knowledge.

The tip alone, especially an anonymous one, historically provides limited probable cause unless accompanied by corroborative evidence. Here, Officer Brutus’s subsequent actions—enlisting an informant, surveillance, and records checks—serve to corroborate initial suspicions. The informant’s observations of theft of large boxes containing expensive handbags into the residence, and the mention of an "unlimited supply" from New York, lend credence to the possibility of counterfeit goods being stored or sold. However, since the informant has no prior police cooperation record, his credibility might be questioned, affecting the strength of probable cause.

Courts have established that a tip, combined with corroborative details like surveillance or financial activity, can amount to probable cause (Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237, 2013). Officer Brutus’s follow-up investigations—checking delivery records, tolls, and observing the suspect returning with a Louis Vuitton bag—further establish circumstantial evidence consistent with illegal activity. Despite this, whether this accumulation reaches probable cause hinges on the totality of the circumstances test, which considers the reliability of the informant, the specificity of the information, and the corroboration of details (Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 1964; Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 1969).

Analysis of Probable Cause with Paragraph 5

Once Officer Brutus reviews additional evidence—delivery records, toll records, visual confirmation of return from a trip carrying a Louis Vuitton handbag, and significant deposits into Bee’s bank accounts—the case for probable cause strengthens. The link between packages addressed from New York City, the car registered to Bee, and her financial activity suggests ongoing commerce potentially involving counterfeit goods. When an officer observes a suspect returning with goods consistent with counterfeit merchandise, and financial patterns support ongoing income inconsistent with other employment, probable cause becomes more compelling.

Importantly, the totality of the circumstances must reasonably lead a prudent officer to believe that criminal activity is occurring. In this case, considering the established pattern of suspicious activity, expert knowledge, and corroborated surveillance, Officer Brutus likely has sufficient probable cause to justify issuing a warrant.

Legal Perspectives and Case Law

The importance of the totality of circumstances is highlighted in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983), which replaced the rigid two-prong Aguilar-Spinelli test with a more flexible standard considering the "fair probability" of criminal activity. Moreover, the courts have recognized that expert training and experience can significantly contribute to establishing probable cause (United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 2002).

Conclusion

In conclusion, assuming only the facts in paragraphs 1-4, Officer Brutus might possess some probable cause based on the corroborated details, but it could be marginal. With the additional information in paragraph 5, the case for probable cause becomes more robust, likely satisfying the constitutional standard for issuing a search warrant. The case underscores the importance of comprehensive investigation and corroboration in building a probable cause case that withstands legal scrutiny.

References

• Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013).
• Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964).
• Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969).
• Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983).
• United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002).
• Maryland Rule 4-204 (Search and Seizure Warrants)
• LaFave, W. R. (2017). Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment. St. Paul: West Academic Publishing.
• Chapters from "Criminal Procedure" by Wayne R. LaFave, recent edition.
• Case law summaries from the Maryland Judiciary and Federal Reports.
• Friedman, L. M., & Swedburg, R. G. (2010). Law in Modern Society: A Biography of the Legal System. Routledge.