Category Archives: Informant hearsay

W.D.Wash.: 14 month delay in searching seized cell phone was reasonable because it wouldn’t have been returned anyway

A 14 month delay between seizure and search of defendant’s cell phone was not unreasonable because the phone would not have been returned to defendant in any event. Plus, he was in jail and couldn’t possess it. United States v. … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Informant hearsay, Motion to suppress, Reasonableness | Comments Off on W.D.Wash.: 14 month delay in searching seized cell phone was reasonable because it wouldn’t have been returned anyway

N.D.Cal.: No RS for stop for alleged street deals based on CI

The officers’ claimed reasonable suspicion of street drug deals in San Francisco’s Tenderloin District just doesn’t add up to it on the totality of circumstances. The CI wasn’t adequately corroborated. The stop and frisk fails. United States v. Castaneda, 2019 … Continue reading

Posted in Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on N.D.Cal.: No RS for stop for alleged street deals based on CI

D.D.C.: Protective order issued to keep def from seeing body camera videos in discovery

There were several body camera videos relating to this case as well as the search and seizure. The issue here is the scope of a protective order to keep defendant from seeing. The government met its burden of showing good … Continue reading

Posted in Body cameras, Cell site location information, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on D.D.C.: Protective order issued to keep def from seeing body camera videos in discovery

OR: In a DUII stop, a request for consent to search is not reasonably related to the basis for the stop; it unreasonably extended it

In a DUII stop, a request for consent to search is not reasonably related to the basis for the stop and it unreasonably extended it. State v. Rondeau, 295 Or. App. 769, 2019 Ore. App. LEXIS 123 (Jan. 24, 2019). … Continue reading

Posted in Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on OR: In a DUII stop, a request for consent to search is not reasonably related to the basis for the stop; it unreasonably extended it

D.Mass.: Part of CI’s criminal history wasn’t disclosed, but enough was; CI was corroborated, and there was PC

The affiant didn’t withhold enough of the CI’s criminal history to be misleading. Not all of it was disclosed, but enough was to show he was part of the criminal milieu. And even if the withholding was significant, there was … Continue reading

Posted in Cell site location information, Good faith exception, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on D.Mass.: Part of CI’s criminal history wasn’t disclosed, but enough was; CI was corroborated, and there was PC

TN: 2012 cell phone search had to be evaluated by law at that time on PCR

Defendant’s post-conviction claim on the 2012 search of his cell phone fails because it wouldn’t have been granted back then. Blunkall v. State, 2019 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 11 (Jan. 4, 2019).* The CI’s information was significantly corroborated by observations … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Good faith exception, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on TN: 2012 cell phone search had to be evaluated by law at that time on PCR

W.D.N.C.: Defendant has standing in rental car under Byrd but loses under GFE under binding circuit law

On remand from the Fourth Circuit, the court determines that Byrd applies and defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car he rented. As for the good faith exception, the court finds that it is bound by circuit … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on W.D.N.C.: Defendant has standing in rental car under Byrd but loses under GFE under binding circuit law

D.Neb.: Google’s email search was a private search and NCMEC didn’t expand it

Google and NCMEC did not conduct Fourth Amendment searches when they encountered child pornography tied to his email account. They did private searches for their own purposes, and NCMEC did not expand Google’s private search. United States v. Ringland, 2019 … Continue reading

Posted in Informant hearsay, Private search | Comments Off on D.Neb.: Google’s email search was a private search and NCMEC didn’t expand it

D.Nev.: CI’s alleged (and unsupported) false statement isn’t a Franks violation; has to be the affiant’s

Defendant claims a Franks violation because the CI is believed to be Rudnick, and Rudnick has credibility problems. Defendant doesn’t allege what is false to even get a hearing. Besides, Rudnick is the CI and not the affiant. Denied. United … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on D.Nev.: CI’s alleged (and unsupported) false statement isn’t a Franks violation; has to be the affiant’s

D.S.C.: CI not sufficiently corroborated for PC for a vehicle search

Defendant was stopped for an alleged window tint violation, but the officer also relied on information from a CI from days before the stop that he thought was probable cause. The government had a dog sniff during the stop, but … Continue reading

Posted in Informant hearsay, Probable cause | Comments Off on D.S.C.: CI not sufficiently corroborated for PC for a vehicle search

E.D.Tenn.: CI on the controlled buy wasn’t an “active participant” in the crime

The CI’s participation in the controlled buy that led to a search warrant doesn’t make the CI an “active participant” in the crime where that’s only the basis for issuance of the warrant and it’s not a separate charge. United … Continue reading

Posted in Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on E.D.Tenn.: CI on the controlled buy wasn’t an “active participant” in the crime

PA: GPS tracker and audio recorder worn by CI for safety reasons not prohibited by Jones or 4A

The CI had a recorder and GPS tracking device placed on him for his safety while he was riding with the defendant. This is not a “tracking device” under state statute or Jones because it wasn’t planted on defendant’s property, … Continue reading

Posted in GPS / Tracking Data, Ineffective assistance, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on PA: GPS tracker and audio recorder worn by CI for safety reasons not prohibited by Jones or 4A