Affidavit In Support Of Arrest Warrant: Fill & Download for Free

Probable cause justifying a search warrant requires more than a mere accusation - it must be based on credible information.Here are excerpts from a discussion of this topic at the Legal Information Institute (Probable Cause):Probable cause is a requirement found in the Fourth Amendment that must usually be met before police make an arrest, conduct a search, or receive a warrant. Courts usually find probable cause when there is a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed (for an arrest) or when evidence of the crime is present in the place to be searched (for a search).…Probable cause exists when there is a fair probability that a search will result in evidence of a crime being discovered.7 For a warrantless search, probable cause can be established by in-court testimony after the search. In the case of a warrant search, however, an affidavit or recorded testimony must support the warrant by indicating on what basis probable cause exists.8A judge may issue a search warrant if the affidavit in support of the warrant offers sufficient credible information to establish probable cause.9 There is a presumption that police officers are reliable sources of information, and affidavits in support of a warrant will often include their observations.10 When this is the case, the officers’ experience and training become relevant factors in assessing the existence of probable cause.11 Information from victims or witnesses, if included in an affidavit, may be important factors as well.12

They say he was a member of a subversive organization. "Based on communications between Caldwell and other known and unknown Oath Keepers members, Caldwell appears to have a leadership role within Oath Keepers," an FBI special agent swore in an affidavit in support of the criminal complaint and arrest warrant. “You can have a substantial security identity and still be a stupid, ignorant A-hole. Not to mention a white supremacist and possibly a neo-Nazi. I am glad they caught him.

As a prosecutor I handled upwards of 300 search warrants and numerous wiretaps and several “bugs.” What follows is based on that experience.You “can” do anything you want. Whether you will succeed is not the answer to what the police serving the warrant are required to do and what you are entitled to.First, you you every right to ask for a copy of the warrant. However, that doesn’t mean it will be produced immediately and given to you. However, unless the Court orders otherwise, at some point during the course of the search the officers must give a copy of the warrant to someone at the premises who appears to have some authority. However, in rare instances where the prosecution can justify it to the court, the court may order that the officers do not have to leave a copy of the warrant.There are at least three misconceptions lay people have about the service of a search warrant:FIRST: The warrant doesn’t have to be at the premises when the search is commenced. An officer (or officers) with knowledge of the issuance of the warrant may commence the search while a copy of the warrant is being brought to the scene. Normally (and depending on how fast the need for the warrant came up), copies of drafts will be available for the search team and there will have been a meeting of the team to discuss the execution of the warrant. That way, once the team is notified that the court has signed the warrant the team may begin the search knowing the parameters of the warrant. It’s never a crap shoot.SECOND: The original warrant is not the holy grail. The signed original will be be given to the prosecutor or the lead investigator and will normally be kept in the prosecutor’s files until it is returned to the court. The original warrant need not be taken to the scene, shown to one of the bad guys, or be otherwise displayed to anyone. Many copies of the original will be made but if there is ever a question about the authenticity or the accuracy of a copy, it can always be compared to the original. And it gets better: the court will retain a copy of the original meaning that if defense counsel questions the original, it can be compared to the court’s copy.THIRD: Once you get your hands on the warrant, you will be sorely disappointed in it. A search warrant will have a description of the premises (and maybe a photograph of the premises), say, essentially, that the court has found probable cause to believe that an offense or offenses has/have been committed and that “evidence, fruits and instrumentalities” of this offense will be found at the place to be searched, The warrant will then go on to list, in generic fashion, the evidence to be seized. It will then go on to tell the officers to leave a copy of the warrant and an inventory of the evidence seized with someone (or at the premises) and return the original warrant to the court, also with an inventory. The warrant will not recite the evidence the court considered in determining there was sufficient probable cause to support the issuance of the warrant. That information will normally be in a separate affidavit that the court will normally place under seal for some period of time in order to permit the investigation to progress without giving the bad guys a roadmap they can use to dispose of other evidence or get to witnesses and potential witnesses.Often that same affidavit (or a slightly modified version of it) will be used to support the issuance of arrest warrants (and, if the search(es) were successful, information obtained during the searches may be plugged into an updated affidavit to support the issuance of arrest warrants). Then, once the defendant is arrested or charged, the defendant will see the affidavit.There is a such a thing as a “sneak and peek warrant” which allows the police to surreptitiously enter premises to make a visual inspection, usually of a drug operation in progress, and to take photographs, essentially a court-authorized burglary. When these warrants are served, the court will, for obvious reasons, postpone providing the bad guys with a copy of the warrant and leaving an inventory. These types of warrants often yield some of the most incriminating evidence.Finally, when agents install court-ordered listening devices (“bugs”) or CCTV cameras, they likewise make a court-authorized surreptitious entry into the premises to be bugged to install the listening devices or CCTV cameras . . . and the agents may have to re-enter the premises on multiple occasions to maintain or reposition listening devices and/or cameras or change batteries. All of these “burglaries” are obviously sanctioned by the court as well. And just as obviously, the agents don’t leave calling cards . . . copies of warrants . . . behind.