Omission of a non-identification of defendant as a robber was not material for Franks. “Even viewing the omitted non-identification as a material omission, probable cause for the search did not rise or fall on the identification of Dorman as the robber; rather the link was between the Dodge Charger and the robbery, Dorman and the Charger, and Dorman and 2317 Chester Street … Dorman speculates that law enforcement officers ‘fear[ed]’ inclusion of the sales clerk’s statement ‘would jeopardize a probable cause finding.’ … MPD Detective Scott Brown, who prepared the affidavit, testified that he chose not to include the sales clerk’s statement in his affidavit because ‘it didn’t help the search warrant’ because the sales clerk was uncertain, but it also ‘didn’t hurt the search warrant’ because the clerk said Dorman’s photograph had some resemblance to the robber. … Dorman’s rank speculation is far from the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ required to demonstrate that the officer knowingly or recklessly omitted this statement, much less overcome the district court’s contrary finding on clear error review.” United States v. Dorman, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 11159 (D.C. Cir. June 23, 2017).
The alleged reasonable suspicion for extending defendant’s traffic stop was the CI’s information which is found insufficient. The state’s alternative basis of defendant’s alleged “jumpiness” was never presented to the trial court. There are no findings on that, it is waived, and the motion to suppress should have been granted. “Lewis has correctly pointed out that the evidence presented at the suppression hearing did not support the trial court’s ruling that reasonable suspicion existed based on the confidential informant’s tip.” State v. Lewis, 2017 Kan. App. LEXIS 47 (June 16, 2017).*
The stop was with reasonable suspicion for two lane changes without signaling. Defendant seemed under the influence. Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not moving to suppress because it would have been denied. City of Cleveland v. Maxwell, 2017-Ohio-4442, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 2496 (8th Dist. June 22, 2017).*
The state showed the impoundment policy was standardized and complied with. It wasn’t necessary at the time to seek out somebody else to retrieve the car from the roadside when both the driver and passenger were arrested. State v. Tronca, 2017 Iowa App. LEXIS 620 (June 21, 2017):
Defendant was stopped at a game checkpoint and admitted to placing his daughter’s tag on a deer he shot. He was not “in custody” when he confessed. State v. Maile, 2017 MT 154, 2017 Mont. LEXIS 350 (June 23, 2017).
Defendant argued in the trial court that an 8 year old couldn’t consent to a search of his house. After the police were at the door, his mother consented to the search. The mother’s consent was never addressed in the trial court, and the defendant thus waived it for appeal. State v. Dahl, 2017 Ida. App. LEXIS 41 (June 22, 2017).*
Officer’s intentionally delaying the ticket writing process until the drug dog was on its way was intentional delay without reasonable suspicion under Rodriguez. United States v. Rodriguez-Escalera, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95848 (S.D. Ill. June 21, 2017):
The bodycam didn’t pick up the officer’s voice, which is “troubling,” but the trial court credited the officers’ testimony defendant consented, and that’s enough to have to affirm on consent. State v. Klinger, 2017 Iowa App. LEXIS 633 (June 21, 2017).*
The affidavit in support of defendant’s motion for new trial was based on a witness affidavit that did not directly address her alleged consent of the property searched. Therefore, the motion fails. United States v. Denton, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10765 (11th Cir. June 19, 2017).*
Off-duty police officer’s in person tip of possible drunk driver was reasonable suspicion for stop. United States v. Hernández-Ayala, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95387 (D. Md. June 21, 2017).
“[T]his Court also finds under the totality of the circumstances that the warrant to search the Nadine residence was supported by probable cause. The Confidential Source’s reliability and credibility were established in the affidavit. Also, the officers watched Ball as he engaged in drug activity with the Source. Clearly, the affidavit was supported by probable cause.” The good faith exception also would apply. United States v. Ball, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95309 (W.D. Tenn. June 21, 2017).*