Category Archives: Informant hearsay

DE: The affidavit for SW didn’t support the CI; motion to suppress granted

The affidavit for the search warrant here was based on a CI’s information and claim that he was constantly surveilled, but that wasn’t true because the officer admitted he didn’t see the alleged drug transaction go down. On the surface … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay | Comments Off on DE: The affidavit for SW didn’t support the CI; motion to suppress granted

CA6: Leaving house, doing drug deal, going back home is nexus

Leaving your house, conducting a drug sale, then returning to your house is nexus that there are drugs in the house. United States v. Houser, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 27671 (6th Cir. Sep. 28, 2018). “The magistrate judge presumed that … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Nexus | Comments Off on CA6: Leaving house, doing drug deal, going back home is nexus

W.D.Ky.: CI’s been buying heroin from def for 3 years, and that’s PC

The named CI’s statement she’d been buying heroin from defendant for three years was probable cause. United States v. Haqq, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165936 (W.D. Ky. Sep. 27, 2018).* Probable cause here was based on the CI’s statement and … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Probable cause | Comments Off on W.D.Ky.: CI’s been buying heroin from def for 3 years, and that’s PC

W.D.Pa.: Request for CI’s identity was speculative venture here and denied

Defendant’s claim he needs the CI’s name to attempt to come up with an alibi defense is essentially speculative and fishing for information without a real goal. It doesn’t overcome Roviaro. United States v. Noble, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161139 … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay | Comments Off on W.D.Pa.: Request for CI’s identity was speculative venture here and denied

CA7: Affiant’s omission of adverse info on CI that he had priors, was on probation, and paid didn’t undermine fresh, detailed, and corroborated info

The affiant left out adverse information about the CI including felony convictions, that he was on probation, and that he was paid. Still, the information from the CI was fresh, detailed, and significantly corroborated, and probable cause still existed. United … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay | Comments Off on CA7: Affiant’s omission of adverse info on CI that he had priors, was on probation, and paid didn’t undermine fresh, detailed, and corroborated info

CA9: Police supervisor’s alleged after-the-fact acquiescence in an alleged illegal search isn’t a § 1983 claim

A police supervisor’s post-hoc alleged acquiescence that he didn’t participate in an alleged illegal search doesn’t state a claim against the supervisor. Hunt v. Davis, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 26265 (9th Cir. Sep. 17, 2018). The officers corroborated enough of … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Franks doctrine, Informant hearsay, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA9: Police supervisor’s alleged after-the-fact acquiescence in an alleged illegal search isn’t a § 1983 claim

E.D.Wis.: Impersonating a DEA agent in one’s car justifies automobile exception

Defendant was arrested for impersonating a DEA officer and using his car to do it. That gave probable cause to search the car. Defendant’s argument that there was an unreasonable inventory are off the mark. United States v. Wade, 2018 … Continue reading →

Posted in Automobile exception, Informant hearsay, Seizure | Comments Off on E.D.Wis.: Impersonating a DEA agent in one’s car justifies automobile exception

D.S.C.: NC CI provided information for SC search; PC shown and GFE would apply

The CI was known to the Fayetteville NC PD, and he provided information there that panned out and led to arrests. Information was provided for North Myrtle Beach SC, and the CI was unknown in SC. Still, there was some … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay | Comments Off on D.S.C.: NC CI provided information for SC search; PC shown and GFE would apply

W.D.N.Y.: Violation of state law on informant hearsay [erroneously] imported into federal prosecution

The court finds the search warrant issued without probable cause as to the informant hearsay under New York law, and a hearing will be scheduled to determine whether to exclude. [Considering that state law violations generally have no affect on … Continue reading →

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on W.D.N.Y.: Violation of state law on informant hearsay [erroneously] imported into federal prosecution

MA: Even if some information in CSLI affidavit was incorrect or false, redacting it still leaves PC

The search warrant for defendant’s CSLI was based on probable cause. Defendant challenges parts of the information as wholly inadequate to show probable cause. Redacting that information, however, still leaves probable cause. Commonwealth v. Robertson, 2018 Mass. LEXIS 563 (Aug. … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell site location information, Franks doctrine, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on MA: Even if some information in CSLI affidavit was incorrect or false, redacting it still leaves PC

CA4: Where CI only provided info for SW, he wasn’t a material witness for trial so no reason for disclosure shown

Defendant didn’t make a showing to get the CI’s identity under Roviaro. The CI was merely the source of information to get the search warrant and he wouldn’t be a witness at trial. There wasn’t even a sufficient showing to … Continue reading →

Posted in Good faith exception, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on CA4: Where CI only provided info for SW, he wasn’t a material witness for trial so no reason for disclosure shown

OH5: Warrantless fire scene search after fire out, power off, and property secured was unreasonable

During a fire in a house, a grow operation was seen and reported to the police. By the time the police came in, the fire was out, the power was off, and the property was secure. The warrantless fire scene … Continue reading →

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on OH5: Warrantless fire scene search after fire out, power off, and property secured was unreasonable

NC: CI merely located defendant; officers already had PC, so no disclosure of CI’s identity

Officers merely used the CI to locate the defendant, not for the probable cause to search, so no reason to disclose the CI is shown. State v. Heard, 2018 N.C. App. LEXIS 828 (Aug. 24, 2018). The dash cam video … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion, Standing | Comments Off on NC: CI merely located defendant; officers already had PC, so no disclosure of CI’s identity

PA: Complete lack of corroboration of CI showed no PC for SW

The affidavit for search warrant did nothing to corroborate the CI. The only inference that can be drawn is that more investigation is required, and it wasn’t done. Therefore, there was no probable cause on the face of the affidavit, … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay | Comments Off on PA: Complete lack of corroboration of CI showed no PC for SW

D.Kan.: Arrest for possession of cash wasn’t even reasonably valid under state law; exclusionary rule applies in federal court

Defendant was stopped, and the officer gave a warning. He continued asking questions which led to a consent search finding cash. The officer then arrested defendants for possession of the proceeds of a drug transaction. Only there were no probable … Continue reading →

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Informant hearsay, Probable cause | Comments Off on D.Kan.: Arrest for possession of cash wasn’t even reasonably valid under state law; exclusionary rule applies in federal court

CA7: CI was a co-conspirator, and corroboration was required

This § 1983 case over a state court search warrant and search essentially seeks to relitigate in federal court the issuance of the warrant, which is not the prerogative of a federal court. Instead, the court finds corroboration of the … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay | Comments Off on CA7: CI was a co-conspirator, and corroboration was required

CA6: Video of controlled buy corroborated CI; fact drugs wasn’t mentioned doesn’t mean no PC

The CI’s story is confirmed by the audio and video of the following controlled buy. Defendant’s claim that the money could have been paid for something else doesn’t undermine the probable cause. “Here, despite no explicit discussion of drugs, put … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Plain view, feel, smell | Comments Off on CA6: Video of controlled buy corroborated CI; fact drugs wasn’t mentioned doesn’t mean no PC

IN: Even though def called off drug deal with CI at last minute there still was RS

The CI was working off his own charges. The CI had to make several tries to make a deal with defendant, and, when it happened, there was advance planning related by the CI. They also were talking on a cell … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on IN: Even though def called off drug deal with CI at last minute there still was RS

NE: State dropping count CI was witness in keeps identity under wraps; can’t show materiality to other counts

The CI was used to get the search warrant for drugs in defendant’s house. During the search, the CI said there would be a gun, and officers found it. Later, the state chose not to pursue the drug charge but … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay | Comments Off on NE: State dropping count CI was witness in keeps identity under wraps; can’t show materiality to other counts

CA11: Def’s 4A challenge doesn’t satisfy successor habeas standard; not even habeas standard

“First, Fails argues that his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when he was arrested because he was never read his Miranda rights and never signed a card waiving those rights. Second, he argues that his Fourth and Fourteenth … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay | Comments Off on CA11: Def’s 4A challenge doesn’t satisfy successor habeas standard; not even habeas standard