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.
True, but the four corners of the affidavit will be reviewed by appeals court, this is an area for possible omissions, and if so possible exculpatory info.
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.
In a couple cases the lawyer found, when a Judge misses something during their reading of affidavit,
or ignore something pertinent, they have abandoned their judicial role. Many lawyers I have spoken to suggested that requisite nexus is criminal justice 101. And the different bag is a cause for concern
Under Wisconsin law,
"The affiant executed the warrant" is not a factor enumerated by the courts. What case are you looking at?
You say that. But the independent magistrate who issued the warrant disagreed, as did the trial court that convicted you.
Perhaps not enumerated by the courts, but makes sense from a defense standpoint. In the attorneys research,
similiar cases where SW was quashed, and good faith denied, the argument was that since the affiant was same person as who served SW the GF exception especially does not apply because he especially was full aware of probable cause lacking nexus to the residence. Illinois v Burmeister Kansas V Malone
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.
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.
Plus the new garbage pull that, like the first one, uncovered evidence of your grow-op.
Pattern or not, assumptions or coincidences are not enough for PC. There still needs to be nexus, there was nexus to old house but not new house.
There is no basis for any such assumption.