# Question 24: The Motion That Chased the Wrong Search

## Your role

You represent Aaron Bell in a drug and firearm prosecution. Prior counsel drafted a suppression motion. Review and correct it under the supplied rules. The draft leads with weak theories and omits the two strongest scope violations.

## Governing law

Assume the following search rules apply:

1. A warrant is supported by timely probable cause when the affidavit establishes a fair probability that specified evidence remains at the place searched. Ongoing possession or trafficking and recent location data reduce staleness.

2. Officers executing a valid warrant may search only places and containers where an item described in the warrant could reasonably be found.

3. A warrant for a laptop or full-size sales records does not authorize opening a container too small to hold either. A separate listed small item may expand container scope only for that item.

4. The plain-view doctrine permits seizure when officers are lawfully in the viewing position, have lawful access, and the object's incriminating character is immediately apparent. It does not permit opening or manipulating an opaque container to create a view.

5. A warrant authorizing seizure of a phone does not authorize examination of digital content unless it describes the data to be searched. A data warrant must be limited by the categories, subject, and time period stated.

6. Evidence found outside a digital warrant's authorized categories or time period is suppressed unless officers encountered it while lawfully reviewing data within scope.

7. A knock-and-announce violation does not require suppression under this jurisdiction's supplied remedy rule, although another remedy may exist.

8. A defendant may challenge the search of the defendant's home and phone. Standing is not defeated merely because another person may also use the device.

9. Severable lawful portions of a search remain valid. Suppression of one item does not automatically suppress evidence found through a distinct lawful search path.

## Facts

Police suspected Aaron of fencing stolen laptops. On February 20 they executed a warrant at his apartment. The affidavit described repeated online sales over six weeks, a buyer's statement that Aaron stored laptops at home, and a location ping placing a recently stolen laptop in the apartment on February 18.

The warrant authorized officers to search for and seize:

* Stolen 15-inch laptop computers.
* Shipping labels and paper sales records concerning laptop sales.
* Aaron's listed cellphone.
* Communications on that cellphone concerning stolen laptops from January 1 through February 18.

During the search:

* An officer opened a locked metal tube three inches long and one inch wide inside a dresser. The tube contained fentanyl capsules. No item listed in the warrant could fit inside it.
* Officers seized Aaron's phone. At the station they reviewed three years of photographs and found an image of Aaron holding an unregistered handgun. They did not encounter the image while reviewing January-February laptop communications.
* An officer looked under the bed, where a laptop could fit, and saw a handgun lying uncovered beside a laptop. The gun's serial number was visibly removed.
* Officers knocked, announced, waited approximately five seconds, and entered with a key obtained from the landlord. Aaron was inside and did not answer.

Prior counsel's draft motion contains three sections:

> **I. The warrant was stale because the first reported laptop theft was twelve days before issuance.**
>
> **II. Every item must be suppressed because police waited only five seconds after knocking.**
>
> **III. The firearm under the bed was outside a warrant for laptops.**

The draft does not discuss the metal tube, the three-year photo search, severability, or the limited date and data categories in the phone warrant.

## Assignment

Review and correct the motion by:

* Ranking the suppression issues from strongest to weakest.
* Identifying the winning issue prior counsel omitted concerning the metal tube.
* Identifying the winning issue prior counsel omitted concerning phone scope.
* Assessing staleness using the recent ping and ongoing conduct.
* Assessing knock-and-announce under the supplied remedy rule.
* Assessing the firearm under the bed and plain view.
* Explaining severability and which evidence survives.
* Providing a corrected motion outline and the concrete plea effect if the fentanyl and phone photograph are suppressed.

---

---