[NatureGirl]

Yes. I'd like to read the affidavit as well. It seems as if you're saying that what Torgersen said in the affidavit is just "confirmation" of what Det. Ott had already figured out from the receipt, ie, "Is Twin Peaks the dry cleaners you used?" DW - "Yes."

So, based on that, Torgersen can now state "DW told us he dropped things off at Twin Peaks dry cleaners on 2/4". Of course, that's pretty innocuous - and makes me wonder why the affidavit had to be sealed.

[iaf97]

In order to get a search warrant an affidavit must supply necessary facts to support its issuance.It must include facts showing why the search is being conducted,why LE believes items related to a crime will be found in the area to be searched and what specifically they seek to obtain from the search.In this case,the underlying facts for the warrants as set forth in the affidavit were often hearsay statements of DW which for various reasons would not be admissible at trial.For this reason, the affidavits were sealed.

The proper way to attack evidence otained from unreasonable searches and seizures is by filing motions under PC sections 995 or 1538.5.The facts set forth in the warrant are hearsay. I would assume that Feldman filed motions to suppress statements of DW obtained in violation of MIRANDA and also attacked any weaknesses in the search warrants. It seems that LE obtained the search warants for the cleaners from DW's voluntary statements prior to the time he began asking for an attorney.

The facts pointing to DW as a suspect appear weak based on evidence in the possesion of the LE prior to execution of the warrant ie he was one of the neighbors who was not home and probably that he had been in the area the night before. However,in every case there is a balancing act between the interest of the state in apprehending criminals and the rights of individuals to be free from unreasonable search and seizures,forced testimony etc. The exigency of the circumstances might justify the issuance of a warrant on weaker facts in cases such as this where a child's life might be in imminent danger.

The statements in the affidavit are only relevant to the reasonableness of the searches.Most of what was in the warrants was presented to the jury. Any discrepancies could have been used to undermine the credibility of SDLE and the legal effect would be to suppress the evidence obtained from the executed searches.In the words of Alan Keyes,Does this make sense?