United States v. Rosa
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 22099
| 2d Cir. | 2010Background
- Investigation began Sept. 26, 2007 into alleged child exploitation by Rosa after 911 reports and interviews with two mothers and two boys.
- Warrant application affidavit by Investigator Blake relied on boys' and mothers' statements, Blake's training, and Rosa's criminal history to seek a warrant for Rosa's apartment.
- Warrant described broad electronic items to seize and did not itself attach or incorporate supporting documents, though the application and affidavit described targeted crimes.
- Seizure occurred Febr. 27, 2007; officers seized computers, drives, cameras, firearms, marijuana, and other items within the scope of the warrant and later forensic analysis revealed child pornography.
- Rosa moved to suppress after arrest; district court denied suppression motions, finding limits implicit in the supporting documents and good faith execution.
- Rosa pleaded guilty to counts related to producing child pornography and witness tampering; district court sentenced to 120 years; this appeal challenges suppression ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrant lacked particularity under the Fourth Amendment | Rosa: warrant too broad; search of electronic media uncircumscribed | Rosa: lack of link between items and crimes invalidates warrant | Warrant lacked particularity; nevertheless suppression denied due to good faith. |
| Whether the exclusionary rule should suppress the evidence given good faith execution | Rosa: defective warrant precludes good faith reliance | Government: officers reasonably relied on warrant and documents | Exclusionary rule not applied; good faith and negligence standard applied. |
| Role of supporting documents in curing defective warrant after Groh | Rosa: cannot cure with unattached documents | Bianco allowed curing; Groh abrogates that | Groh abrogated Bianco; but in this case officers acted in good faith and limits were apparent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (2004) (warrant invalid for lack of particularity; cannot be saved by attachments)
- United States v. Bianco, 998 F.2d 1112 (2d Cir. 1993) (unincorporated documents cannot cure a defective warrant (pre-Groh))
- United States v. George, 975 F.2d 72 (2d Cir. 1992) (mere reference to 'evidence' of crime is insufficient for particularity)
- Liu v. United States, 239 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2000) (warrant must be sufficiently specific to permit rational seizure decisions)
- Herring v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 695 (2009) (neither suppression nor deterrence automatic; good faith if negligent conduct)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good faith exception to exclusionary rule)