Category Archives: Informant hearsay

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