It's hard to get a balanced picture when the State's responses are sealed. I hope when Hippler issues orders on these motions any of his reasoning that doesn't potentially compromise the integrity of trial will be unsealed.
However, I did have a look at the unsealed State Reply to MTS Warrant for WA Apartment, and the Lamsden PA search warrant MTS is referenced.
The points that stand out to me and hint at the nature of P's response to Logsdon's claims:
a) State says D's argument re Search Warrant for BK's WA Apartment parallels argument for MTS Search warrant PA Lamsden.
b) Quoting from P's response
"Regarding the Defendant's represented "FACTS," and
as opposed to relying on Defendant's subjective summary and interpretation, the State respectfully refers the Court to
Defendant's "Exhibit A" in support of his Motion to Suppress RE: Search Warrant for Defendant's Apartment"
(my bolding & italics)
The above 'referral' is repeated in every unsealed P response I've read, so imo likely to also be included in P response to MTS Lamsden Search Warrant.
I think this reveals the P's assessment that Logsdon plays loose with the facts in his prose and can be obtuse and misleading in motions. No denying it's a pointed statement to the court, though it is polite ( not sarcastic) and without hyperbole. Jmo
C) quoting the summary of P's argument below. (Details and attachments are all sealed.)
"In his Memorandum, at page 5, the Defendant discusses what should be the applicable law between the States of Idaho and Washington.
This is the same discussion the Defendant
presented in his various motions regarding search warrants from the State of Pennsylvania.
Similar to the State's response to those motions, the State acknowledges that there appears
to be little, if any, substantive differences between the applicable laws between the States of Idaho and
Washington, and the State submits that under either law the Defendant's Motion should be denied.".
(My emphasis).
Just as a layperson, that sounds reasonable and I don't think this part of D's argument re differing state laws will pass muster. Leaving aside the poison tree IGG hooha, I think LE executed search warrants lawfully in accordance with each state (PA and WA) and were careful to do so. Jmo
*
