Quote Quoting Frozen Tundra
View Post
there is no other surveillance, and none showing that defendant was seen placing that particular bag in garbage.
You indicate that there was other investigation; just none that was reflected in the warrant. The police attempted other searches of your garbage, so they were watching you.
Quote Quoting Frozen Tundra
At quick glance, the affidavit seems to suggest indices was in same bag. If read quickly. Cloer read shows otherwise. Perhaps Judge missed this?
If the affidavit is accurate, it is accurate. Guessing that the judge may have missed something does not make it so, nor does it affect the validity of a warrant issued on the basis of an accurate affidavity.
Quote Quoting Frozen Tundra
Furthermore, since affiant is same investigator who served warrant, good faith exception does not apply.
Under Wisconsin law,
Quote Quoting State v. Marquardt, 286 Wis.2d 204, 705 N.W.2d 878 (2005).
[T]he Court in Leon described four sets of circumstances under which the good faith exception does not apply:

[1] the magistrate or judge in issuing a warrant was misled by information in an affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false except for his reckless disregard of the truth. . . . [2] the issuing magistrate wholly abandoned his judicial role . . . . [3] Nor would an officer manifest objective good faith in relying on a warrant based on an affidavit "so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable." [4] Finally, depending on the circumstances of the particular case, a warrant may be so facially deficient—i.e., in failing to particularize the place to be searched or the things to be seized—that the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid.
Id. at 923 (citations omitted; emphasis added).
"The affiant executed the warrant" is not a factor enumerated by the courts. What case are you looking at?
Quote Quoting Frozen Tundra
View Post
The officer who applied for warrant is same as who executed warrant. He knowingly submitted an affidavit so lacking in indicia of probable cause it rendered any official belief in it to be unreasonable.
You say that. But the independent magistrate who issued the warrant disagreed, as did the trial court that convicted you.

Quote Quoting Frozen Tundra
View Post
In my research and advice from an appeals attorney, when the validity of a search warrant is challenged, or defendant asserts the trial court erred in denying motion to suppress, the appeals court applies a de novo review.
That doesn't mean you get a new trial in the appellate court, or that you get to present new evidence -- it simply means that the appellate court does not defer to the trial court's decision when reviewing the issue on appeal.

You appear to now be arguing that there was ample evidence of your criminal activity in the garbage bag, but that somebody else may have planted bags containing evidence of marijuana cultivation outside of both of your homes, such that the court should not have considered that evidence when evaluating the application for the warrant. I expect that the prior pull was brought to the court's attention to help establish that this is a pattern at your homes, thus unlikely to be a coincidence.
Quote Quoting Frozen Tundra
View Post
Appeals attorney suggests there is wisconsin case that encourages an invitation of people v burmeister in illinois.
There probably is a basis for arguing that where the only evidence against a defendant is a trash pull that may not even be of the defendants trash, with an error-riddled affidavit that suggests that the police may not even have pulled the trash from the defendant's home, there would be grounds to question the resultant warrant. But that's not what happened in your case.
Quote Quoting Frozen Tundra
View Post
Of course not. but in my case other evidence is a 16 month old anonymous tip. and a garbage pull that is 16 months old and electrical usage?
Plus the new garbage pull that, like the first one, uncovered evidence of your grow-op.
Quote Quoting Frozen Tundra
View Post
Any other investigation must have been exculpatory.
There is no basis for any such assumption.