Daily Archives: February 28, 2018

CA10: “affidavit established a minimally sufficient nexus between the criminal activity and the place to be searched.”

“Deputy Tucker’s affidavit established a minimally sufficient nexus between the criminal activity and the place to be searched.” Therefore, the affidavit shows probable cause. “The warrant was not based on an affidavit that ‘merely states suspicions, beliefs, or conclusions.’ Roach, … Continue reading

Posted in Nexus | Comments Off on CA10: “affidavit established a minimally sufficient nexus between the criminal activity and the place to be searched.”

WSJ: When Illegally Obtained Evidence Can Be Used Against You

WSJ: When Illegally Obtained Evidence Can Be Used Against You by Joe Palazzolo: The digital age has accelerated carve-outs to a concept that most Americans take for granted: that evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution can’t be used against … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on WSJ: When Illegally Obtained Evidence Can Be Used Against You

CA10: Consent was attenuated from alleged unlawful stop despite def’s real urgency to go pee

The government proved that defendant’s consent was attentuated from the alleged unlawful detention because the paperwork during the stop was given back. The district court considered the fact defendant complained she had to pee really bad. United States v. Ramos, … Continue reading

Posted in Attenuation | Comments Off on CA10: Consent was attenuated from alleged unlawful stop despite def’s real urgency to go pee

CA8: Def has burden of showing illegal detention was “but for” cause of finding evidence

Defendant was a known drug dealer, and he was parked with his hood open. He said he was checking the belt on the engine. The officer was not prohibited from approaching the car and looking under the hood, too. Defendant … Continue reading

Posted in Inevitable discovery, Plain view, feel, smell | Comments Off on CA8: Def has burden of showing illegal detention was “but for” cause of finding evidence

M.D.Fla.: SW’s particularity had a reference back to “property connected with the above listed crime(s)” and that’s particular

Despite renting a hotel room in a false name, defendant had standing to challenge the search of the room because he rented it and he was sleeping there and had his stuff there. The search warrant was based on an … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Particularity | Comments Off on M.D.Fla.: SW’s particularity had a reference back to “property connected with the above listed crime(s)” and that’s particular

SCOTUSBlog: Argument analysis: Justices divided over disclosure of overseas emails

SCOTUSBlog: Argument analysis: Justices divided over disclosure of overseas emails by Amy Howe:

Posted in E-mail, F.R.Crim.P. 41 | Comments Off on SCOTUSBlog: Argument analysis: Justices divided over disclosure of overseas emails