United States v. Riesselman, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14993

Confidential informant informs DNE agent Riesselman possessed meth and weapons at his Vail, Iowa residence in early 2008.
Informant records continued discussions; in May 2008 informant buys meth from Riesselman.
Agent Heideman prepares a search warrant affidavit and Attachment 1 listing items; magistrate issues warrant July 3, 2008; warrant references Attachment 1 and targets Riesselman's residence only.
Warrant executed July 9, 2008; Riesselman detained, searched, and small amount of methamphetamine and a cell phone are seized; Miranda rights administered after discovery.
Investigators interview Riesselman inside his home; a portion of the interview is recorded after Jones joins; Riesselman provides admissions regarding distribution, drug history, and weapons.
Attachment 1 was not provided to Riesselman at the conclusion of the search, though a full warrant copy was present; district court finds attachment was sufficiently incorporated and that the search was within scope.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether fruits of the search warrant should be suppressed	Riesselman asserts lack of attachment at conclusion voids particularity.	Riesselman concedes attachment presence at scene; incorporation suffices.	Warrant sufficiently particular; attachment presence at scene validates incorporation.
Whether Rule 41(f)(1)(C) violation warrants suppression	Riesselman argues officers failed to give a copy/receipt after search.	Riesselman cannot show prejudice or reckless disregard; inventory provided mitigates harm.	Suppression not warranted; lack of prejudice/reckless conduct supports denial.
Whether statements after unlawful search are admissible as tainted fruit	Riesselman argues statements stemmed from illegal search of his person.	District court properly analyzed taint and attenuation; statements could be voluntary anyway.	District court did not err; statements attenuated and voluntary.
Whether statements are attenuated given Miranda warnings and intervening circumstances	Riesselman contends proximity and misconduct taint the statements.	Miranda warnings, time, intervening circumstances, and lack of purposeful misconduct show voluntariness.	Voluntariness supported; attenuation established.

United States v. Curry, 911 F.2d 72 (8th Cir. 1990) (incorporation of attachments supports particularity)
United States v. Johnson, 541 F.2d 1311 (8th Cir. 1976) (references to attached materials can satisfy particularity)
Rickert v. Sweeney, 813 F.2d 907 (8th Cir. 1987) (presence of attachment at scene can satisfy incorporation)
Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (U.S. 2004) (affidavit can provide particularity when incorporated by reference)
Baranski v. United States, 515 F.3d 857 (8th Cir. 2008) (scoped by attachment and magistrate approval; no violation when properly limited)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1963) (fruit of the poisonous tree; taint analysis framework)
Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 (U.S. 1980) (Miranda warnings as factor in voluntariness)
Lakoskey v. Beaudry, 462 F.3d 965 (8th Cir. 2006) (four-factor test for voluntariness)
Vega-Rico, 417 F.3d 976 (8th Cir. 2005) (intervening circumstances support voluntariness)
Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1969) (taint must be purged by attenuation)
Marasco, 487 F.3d 543 (8th Cir. 2007) (burden to show taint on provable evidence)
Becker, 333 F.3d 858 (8th Cir. 2003) (timing and voluntariness considerations in attenuation analysis)