Category Archives: Informant hearsay

N.D.Cal.: Searching a Bible during a house drug search was reasonable in case it was hollowed out

Searching a Bible during a house drug search was reasonable in case it was hollowed out. A page was dog eared and noted as potentially relevant to the case. Opening the Bible was reasonable under the circumstance. The case starts … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Scope of search | Comments Off on N.D.Cal.: Searching a Bible during a house drug search was reasonable in case it was hollowed out

CA2: Protective sweep justified in executing arrest warrant for murder suspect

The protective sweep of defendant’s Florida home was justified because he was wanted for murder during a drug trafficking crime. Officers saw pictures of defendant with gang members, and defendant consented to their seizure. United States v. Guerrero, 2016 U.S. … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Informant hearsay, Protective sweep | Comments Off on CA2: Protective sweep justified in executing arrest warrant for murder suspect

CT: First time CI credited because of admission against penal interest and detailed information

It was reasonable for the trial court to find probable cause for the warrant of a first time CI who gave a statement against penal interest and gave detailed information about drugs and cash in defendant’s house. State v. Rodriguez, … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on CT: First time CI credited because of admission against penal interest and detailed information

TN: Citizen informant’s call describing vehicle and LPN involved in apparent drug deal was RS

Citizen informant’s call that a neighbor was dealing drugs out of his house and describing the comings and goings and the LPN and description of the last car was reasonable suspicion for that car’s stop. State v. Foster, 2016 Tenn. … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on TN: Citizen informant’s call describing vehicle and LPN involved in apparent drug deal was RS

CA11: CI’s trip was not predictive but still [barely] enough to show reliability

The informant’s tip here was enough to show reliability, even though only readily observable facts were relied upon. “In this case, the tip did not predict Brown’s behavior; it only provided past or present information. As such, the tip is … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay | Comments Off on CA11: CI’s trip was not predictive but still [barely] enough to show reliability

W.D.Pa.: Gun abandoned in flight from police wasn’t the product of an illegal seizure

Abandoned firearm in flight from the police in an allegedly illegal stop isn’t a seizure, and the gun is admissible. United States v. Giles, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200 (W.D.Pa. Jan. 4, 2016).* The CI’s tip was that he’d seen … Continue reading →

Posted in Abandonment, Franks doctrine, Informant hearsay, Seizure | Comments Off on W.D.Pa.: Gun abandoned in flight from police wasn’t the product of an illegal seizure

MA rejects Navarette on anonymous 911 calls but still finds reasonable suspicion from observation of driving

An anonymous 911 caller reported defendant’s erratic driving, and that led to defendant’s stop after the officer saw it for himself. Reliance on Navarette is rejected. “We decline to endorse the Supreme Court’s reliance on the use of the 911 … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay | Comments Off on MA rejects Navarette on anonymous 911 calls but still finds reasonable suspicion from observation of driving

IN: Concerned citizen report of man likely with gun was sufficient for encounter

Identified citizen informant’s 911 call that a man in the neighborhood appeared to be armed was reason for a police encounter with the defendant who became more skittish as they talked. Concerned citizen tips are important and should be acted … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Stop and frisk | Comments Off on IN: Concerned citizen report of man likely with gun was sufficient for encounter

M.D.Fla.: Rodriguez violated where def told he was “good to go” but officer then said turn pockets inside out

The officer told defendant that he was “good to go” but sought consent to go through his pockets and then told him to turn the pockets inside out. That was a Rodriguez violation, and the motion to suppress is granted. … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on M.D.Fla.: Rodriguez violated where def told he was “good to go” but officer then said turn pockets inside out

PA: Anonymous tip that a parolee had marijuana in his house wasn’t sufficient for RS for a parole search

Anonymous tip that a parolee had marijuana in his house wasn’t sufficient for reasonable suspicion for a parole search, despite the lesser expectation of privacy that a parolee has. Commonwealth v. Coleman, 2015 PA Super 258, 2015 Pa. Super. LEXIS … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on PA: Anonymous tip that a parolee had marijuana in his house wasn’t sufficient for RS for a parole search

LA2: It isn’t required that occurrence of a crime actually happened, but it is really important to PC

“Although certainty of knowledge of the commission of a particular crime is frequently an important factor in the determination of probable cause, probable cause may exist when the commission of a crime has not been definitely established, but is reasonably … Continue reading →

Posted in Inevitable discovery, Informant hearsay, Probable cause | Comments Off on LA2: It isn’t required that occurrence of a crime actually happened, but it is really important to PC

A.F.Ct.Crim.App.: Spousal privilege as hearsay doesn’t prevent SW from issuing

Under United States v. Lovell, 8 M.J. 613 (A.F.C.M.R. 1979), “testimonial privilege conferred by Mil. R. Evid. 504 does not extend to preventing a spouse from furnishing evidence which provides probable cause for authorizing a search. This precedent would have … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay | Comments Off on A.F.Ct.Crim.App.: Spousal privilege as hearsay doesn’t prevent SW from issuing

CA6 explains in detail informant hearsay in a close case

The informant hearsay shows probable cause for the search warrant. The court provides a detailed analysis of how informant hearsay is evaluated. On the totality of circumstances, probable cause was shown. United States v. Howard, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20705 … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay | Comments Off on CA6 explains in detail informant hearsay in a close case

IN: Officer’s stop for no paper license except in rear window was unreasonable because it was now lawful to have it there

State law had changed a year before defendant’s stop to allow for temporary plates to be hung in the rear window. Defendant was stopped for no license plate. As the officer approached, he could see a plate in the rear … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion, Reasonableness | Comments Off on IN: Officer’s stop for no paper license except in rear window was unreasonable because it was now lawful to have it there

OH12: Passenger’s nervous behavior more significant than driver’s

Defendant was not a listed driver on the rental agreement and he failed to keep eye contact with the officer during the stop. “Hill’s nervous behavior is more significant because as the passenger of the Impala, he did not commit … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on OH12: Passenger’s nervous behavior more significant than driver’s

NY3: It’s not IAC to not listen to the audio of the SW application where there was a motion to suppress for lack of PC

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not listening to the audio of the oral application for the search warrant challenging probable cause. The defense moved to suppress on lack of PC, and it was denied by the trial court and … Continue reading →

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion, Reasonableness | Comments Off on NY3: It’s not IAC to not listen to the audio of the SW application where there was a motion to suppress for lack of PC

AL: Federal adoption of a forfeiture deprives the state court of jurisdiction to order return of property

Federal adoption of a forfeiture deprives the state court of jurisdiction to order return of property. Gray v. City of Opelika, 2015 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 254 (Nov. 6, 2015). A traffic offense justified this stop, then “the smell of … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Plain view, feel, smell, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on AL: Federal adoption of a forfeiture deprives the state court of jurisdiction to order return of property

S.D.Ala.: The known CI’s staying involved in the operation supported credibility because it was against penal interest

“It is unnecessary to identify the bare minimum required for an informant’s tip to support reasonable suspicion, because the circumstances of this case rise far above that threshold, and the question is not at all close. Laffitte did not receive … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on S.D.Ala.: The known CI’s staying involved in the operation supported credibility because it was against penal interest

CA1: CI corroborated by two observed controlled buys

The CI was already corroborated by database searches that her basic information about defendant was correct [which isn’t saying much], but the real corroboration was the officer observing two controlled buys from the defendant. United States v. White, 2015 U.S. … Continue reading →

Posted in Apparent authority, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on CA1: CI corroborated by two observed controlled buys

C.D.Ill.: Before and after a CI does a controlled buy, there is no constitutional requirement that the CI be subjected to a body cavity search

Before and after a CI does a controlled buy, there is no constitutional requirement that the CI be subjected to a body cavity search. United States v. Sidwell, 440 F.3d 865, 869 (7th Cir. 2006); United States v. Garcia, 983 … Continue reading →

Posted in Automobile exception, Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on C.D.Ill.: Before and after a CI does a controlled buy, there is no constitutional requirement that the CI be subjected to a body cavity search