S.D.Ohio: Old background info coupled with new info doesn’t make warrant stale

The search warrant was not stale. It had pretty old background information that alone would be stale, but it provided recent information as well, and that was sufficient to overcome staleness. United States v. Thomas, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125410 (S.D. Ohio September 8, 2014);* United States v. Magee, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126246 (D. Me. September 8, 2014).*

A Sears loss prevention employee observed defendant pulling things off a shelf without checking prices and then attempted to present a check that was declined, and he offered no other form of payment. One thing led to another and an officer was called and defendant fled and was tackled running away. Six months later, defendant was seen again driving by the officer who ran a DL check on defendant and the license was suspended. The officer stopped defendant and arrested him for the suspended DL. The inventory for the tow revealed forged checks and forgery equipment, and the inventory was valid. United States v. Goodwin, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125589 (D. Utah September 8, 2014).*

The smell of marijuana on the person is probable cause. The court refuses to engage in a distinction between strong or moderate smell and whether it needs to be corroborated by another officer. State v. Crosby, 2014 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 881 (September 9, 2014).*

This entry was posted in Inventory, Probable cause, Staleness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.