Daily Archives: August 24, 2018

D.Colo.: There is no requirement the SW particularly describe the inside of the place to be searched

The CI was corroborated by controlled buys and surveillance cameras showing drug deals outside defendant’s home. The house was sufficiently described that the wrong house wouldn’t be searched. “Ms. Pereda nonetheless argues the search warrant lacked particularity because it did … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Particularity | Comments Off on D.Colo.: There is no requirement the SW particularly describe the inside of the place to be searched

WA: Even if CP warrant was overbroad (it’s not), severability makes seizure valid

One month old information received from Microsoft to NCMEC was not stale. (That is settled everywhere.) The search warrant was not too vague, and, even it if was, the court’s ability to sever invalid parts makes this search valid. State … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Overbreadth, Staleness | Comments Off on WA: Even if CP warrant was overbroad (it’s not), severability makes seizure valid

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

N.D.Ga.: Alleged isolated violation of Posse Comitatus Act doesn’t require exclusion

Alleged isolated violation of Posse Comitatus Act doesn’t require exclusion. McGill v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142130 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 22, 2018). Trash cans were left at the street for collection of the contents, so there was no … Continue reading

Posted in Community caretaking function, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: Alleged isolated violation of Posse Comitatus Act doesn’t require exclusion

OH5: Def’s wallet was placed on roof of car during patdown; after PC developed under automobile exception, it was subject to search, too

When defendant got out of the car during the stop, the officer ordered him to put down his cell phone and wallet that were in his hands, and he put them on the roof. Inside the car, the officer saw … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception | Comments Off on OH5: Def’s wallet was placed on roof of car during patdown; after PC developed under automobile exception, it was subject to search, too

D.Conn.: Def didn’t provide an affidavit of his standing, but his offer of proof and then actual proof showed it

Defendant claimed for trial that while he was a visitor at the premises searched under the warrant, he still had standing because he was a guest there and a paying tenant at times. He didn’t provide an affidavit, but he … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Standing | Comments Off on D.Conn.: Def didn’t provide an affidavit of his standing, but his offer of proof and then actual proof showed it

D.D.C.: Overdetention claim doesn’t lie under 4A but does under 5A

Plaintiff’s overdetention claim doesn’t lie under the Fourth Amendment but it does under the Fifth. “According to Jones, strip searching an inmate who has been ordered released before returning that inmate to the general population violates the Fourth Amendment unless … Continue reading

Posted in Abandonment, Arrest or entry on arrest, Seizure | Comments Off on D.D.C.: Overdetention claim doesn’t lie under 4A but does under 5A