Category Archives: Informant hearsay

N.D.Okla.: Patdown for weapons that became an investigative search was unreasonable

Defendant concedes the basis for the stop but not the justification for a patdown. The court finds reasonable suspicion on the totality extreme (not ordinary) nervousness. But, the search was excessive, and the motion to suppress is granted. “The Court … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on N.D.Okla.: Patdown for weapons that became an investigative search was unreasonable

CO: Opening door to confirm VIN of possible stolen car was reasonable when the dashboard VIN was covered

The officers had reasonable suspicion that the car was stolen. They exhausted all the possibilities without confirming one way or the other, and the VIN on the dashboard wasn’t visible. Opening the door to see the VIN on the door … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion, Reasonableness | Comments Off on CO: Opening door to confirm VIN of possible stolen car was reasonable when the dashboard VIN was covered

W.D.N.Y.: Just because the govt can’t unlock def’s iPhone doesn’t mean he can get return of it under Rule 41(g)

Just because the government hasn’t yet accessed defendant’s iPhone because it can’t crack the code to unlock it doesn’t mean that defendant can get it back under Rule 41(g). It’s still potential evidence. United States v. Morgan, 2020 U.S. Dist. … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Informant hearsay, Particularity, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on W.D.N.Y.: Just because the govt can’t unlock def’s iPhone doesn’t mean he can get return of it under Rule 41(g)

N.D.Ohio: Controlled buy is PC; CI’s alleged lie isn’t Franks issue

A controlled buy was probable cause. The claim that the CI lied isn’t cognizable under Franks. United States v. Sheridan, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36163 (N.D. Ohio. Mar. 3, 2020). There were disputed questions of fact on whether it was … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Informant hearsay, Qualified immunity, Stop and frisk | Comments Off on N.D.Ohio: Controlled buy is PC; CI’s alleged lie isn’t Franks issue

N.D.Ind.: Omitting CI’s criminal history wasn’t a Franks violation where it was obvious he was involved in criminal activity

Omission of the CI’s prior convictions wasn’t material for Franks purposes. It was obvious he was helping himself out in making penal admissions, and his credibility was otherwise shown. The issuing magistrate would have still issued the warrant. United States … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Arrest or entry on arrest, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on N.D.Ind.: Omitting CI’s criminal history wasn’t a Franks violation where it was obvious he was involved in criminal activity

S.D.Fla.: Tip of man brandishing a gun was more like Navarette than J.L.

“The undersigned finds that the instant case is more akin to Navarette, than J.L. Although the tipster in the instant case was completely anonymous, there was sufficient indicia of reliability, based on the totality of the circumstances, to support Officer … Continue reading →

Posted in Dog sniff, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on S.D.Fla.: Tip of man brandishing a gun was more like Navarette than J.L.

MA: “Observing” a controlled buy from outside an apartment building is not corroboration of the CI

“Observing” a controlled buy from outside an apartment building is not corroboration of the informant under the state constitution. They didn’t see what apartment was involved. Commonwealth v. Ponte, 2020 Mass. App. LEXIS 16 (Feb. 13, 2020). The area surveillance … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Protective sweep | Comments Off on MA: “Observing” a controlled buy from outside an apartment building is not corroboration of the CI

CA9: Unobjected to supervised release search condition was reasonable

Defendant’s supervised release unobjected to search condition is reviewed for plain error and found reasonable from his criminal history. United States v. Oseguera, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 4350 (9th Cir. Feb. 10, 2020).* Giving deference to the state court affidavit … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on CA9: Unobjected to supervised release search condition was reasonable

N.D.Ill.: Shotspotter’s negative report belied the anonymous CI and made reliance on the CI unreasonable

The Shotspotter’s negative report of shots fired immediately known by the police contradicted their anonymous CI and made defendant’s stop unreasonable. United States v. King, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23208 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 11, 2020). The co-occupant of defendant’s trailer … Continue reading →

Posted in Apparent authority, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on N.D.Ill.: Shotspotter’s negative report belied the anonymous CI and made reliance on the CI unreasonable

LA: Truck driver who phoned in report of passed out driver with gun in lap on busy NOLA bridge was not “anonymous”

Defendant was stopped and apparently passed out on the Claiborne Street bridge in New Orleans. A truck driver called in to report it and that defendant had a gun in his lap. Then an accident occurred. The trial court erred … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on LA: Truck driver who phoned in report of passed out driver with gun in lap on busy NOLA bridge was not “anonymous”

S.D.Cal.: USMC spotter working with CBP didn’t violate Posse Comitatus Act

A US Marine working the border spotted a potential illegal crossing through a scope and reported it to the Border Patrol who made the stop and arrest. The Posse Comitatus Act as interpreted by the Ninth Circuit applies to the … Continue reading →

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on S.D.Cal.: USMC spotter working with CBP didn’t violate Posse Comitatus Act

CA6: Def’s volunteering to officer “he was working with a DEA agent but because his status was classified” contributed to RS

“But even assuming the officers had exceeded the time needed to handle the traffic stop, Officer Ullrich had reasonable suspicion to use the drug dog. As Officer Ullrich approached Jackson’s car after making the traffic stop, Jackson made numerous unprompted … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion, Uncategorized | Comments Off on CA6: Def’s volunteering to officer “he was working with a DEA agent but because his status was classified” contributed to RS

S.D.Ind.: Lawyer not ineffective for not telling co-def’s counsel of a potential 4A claim

A lawyer can’t be ineffective for not raising a Fourth Amendment claim where there was no standing. In addition, he can’t be ineffective for not telling the lawyer for the person with standing about a search issue. It wouldn’t even … Continue reading →

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on S.D.Ind.: Lawyer not ineffective for not telling co-def’s counsel of a potential 4A claim

TN: Payton permitted entry to execute arrest warrant on motel room

Officers reasonably believed defendant was in a motel room, and an arrest warrant permitted entry under Payton. The observations from that went to getting a search warrant for the room. State v. Brandon, 2020 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 5 (Jan. … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Informant hearsay, Standards of review | Comments Off on TN: Payton permitted entry to execute arrest warrant on motel room

D.Neb.: The detail of a 911 call and corroboration of significant parts provided RS for a stop under Naverette

The detail of a 911 call and corroboration of significant parts provided reasonable suspicion for a stop under Naverette. United States v. Dan, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14906 (D. Neb. Jan. 13, 2020):

Posted in Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.Neb.: The detail of a 911 call and corroboration of significant parts provided RS for a stop under Naverette

MA: Def’s frisk during his traffic stop was unjustified and unreasonable

The granting of defendant’s motion to suppress is affirmed. Although the stop of his vehicle was proper, his frisk was improper as was the search of his car which was based on the results of the improper frisk. Defendant’s actions … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion, Stop and frisk | Comments Off on MA: Def’s frisk during his traffic stop was unjustified and unreasonable

N.D.Ga.: Explicit collective detail of three CIs was probable cause

The explicit collective detail of the three informants was probable cause. United States v. Morelock, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225737 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 9, 2019), adopted, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12596 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 27, 2020)*:

Posted in Informant hearsay | Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: Explicit collective detail of three CIs was probable cause

CA2: CI’s reliability supported because he also testified under oath before warrant issued

“[The CI’s] reliability is further supported by the fact that he ‘testified under threat of the criminal sanction for perjury,’ and that his eye-witness report of the crime was incredibly detailed.” United States v. Martin, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 2738 … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion, Seizure | Comments Off on CA2: CI’s reliability supported because he also testified under oath before warrant issued

M.D.La.: Merely being a CI doesn’t make the CI a “participant” in the crime for disclosure

Merely being a CI for the police doesn’t make the CI a participant in the crime to make his or her identity subject to disclosure. United States v. Westbrook, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10563 (M.D. La. Jan. 22, 2020). The … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on M.D.La.: Merely being a CI doesn’t make the CI a “participant” in the crime for disclosure

ID: Def left his own door open before the dog sniff; and sniff wasn’t otherwise unreasonable

Defendant got out of his car and left the door open, so it was already open when the dog sniff occurred. Opening the door was not a command. “We decline, however, to rule that an officer’s knock on a driver’s … Continue reading →

Posted in Dog sniff, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on ID: Def left his own door open before the dog sniff; and sniff wasn’t otherwise unreasonable