Reference no: EM133428112

Case Study: Wally is a lawyer, a former state legislator, and a small town newspaper publisher. Police suspect that he is also laundering money for local drug dealers.

A concerned citizen, also known as "Vigilante Hacker," has reported to police that FS, LM and GR, people who the police know to be drug dealers, take proceeds of their cocaine sales operation to Wally, who then "launders" these proceeds through Realty Right Trust ("RRT.) Wally is the owner of the RRT. Vigilante Hacker says that this has been going on since at least 2005.

Vigilante Hacker informs police that the RRT records are kept on computers in an office at Wally's home - an office which Wally uses to run his newspaper and his law office. He explains to police that he has hacked into Wally's personal and business computers and copied records which show that Wally has taken large sums of money from the drug dealers and used this money to purchase local properties through the RRT. These records, which he has provided to police, also show that when the RRT sells the properties purchased with drug dealers' money, Wally gives the drug dealers an RRT check for 60% of the proceeds and keeps the remaining 40% as a "commission."

Police "sit on" these records until two of the dealers, FS and LM, are arrested for drug trafficking. Then, after consulting with the local prosecutor, police offer FS and LM a "deal" on the pending charges, if they will cooperate in exchange for a more lenient sentence.

The police spoke with FS and LM individually on the morning of their arrest. Each told the investigators that he had given money to Wally that Wally knew to be money that was the proceeds of drug sales. Each said that over the past four or five years Wally had taken drug money, "invested" it in the RRT and eventually returned "clean money" to them (after taking his 40% commission off the top). LM confirmed that he had gone to Wally's office and given Wally $25,000 in drug proceeds the day before the interview. LM showed the police the receipt that Wally had given him.

FS also tells police that Wally has told him that he has two computers in his office. FS thinks that Wally keeps the files for his law clients and his newspaper stories on both computers and that RRT records are on both computers as well.

FS also says that Wally has told him that he has a process for destroying the RRT evidence on the computers if he even "gets a whiff" that police are "on to him."

When LM tells police that Wally seemed nervous that morning and was mumbling something about "police," the officers decide that they are going to have move quickly and try to get a search warrant for that evening.

Question:

What legal problem(s) can be identified that can be foreseen during a plan to write documents to request a search warrant and then execute the warrant? Explain the legal problem(s) in detail. How could each potential legal problem(s) identified be solved?

An affidavit in support of the search warrant is one of the documents that police officers must create. What must an affidavit establish? What could be listed from the legal problems detailed that prove what is needed to obtain a search warrant?