Opinion ID: 203974
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The agents' testimony

Text: As we have previously explained, officers freeze a property because they intend to seek a warrant and wish to preserve evidence. Dessesaure, 429 F.3d at 363. For this reason, testimony as to why officers froze a property may also reveal why they sought a search warrant. Here, Agent Roberto testified that what led to the premises being frozen was [p]art ... the interview and part what was observed during the protective sweep. Agent DiTulio testified that what led to us freezing the apartment was a series of factors, namely, the conflicting statements, along with what we saw during the protective sweep. The factors cited are plainly relevant to a decision to seek a warrant. They would suggest, to a reasonable officer, the presence of criminal activity. Moreover, the agents' testimony on this point does not necessarily imply that they would have sought the search warrant if the protective sweep had not occurred. Agent Roberto's testimony that what led to the freezing was [p]art ... the interview and part what was observed might have meant that the interview and the protective sweep were each sufficient to prompt him to seek the warrantin other words, that he sought the warrant for two independent reasons. However, Agent Roberto also might have meant that the combination of the interview and the protective sweep prompted him to seek the warrant, such that he would not have sought the warrant if either condition were absent. It was the government's burden to rule out the second interpretation. For reasons we explain below, it was not clear error for the district court to choose that interpretation.