MS: Unknown and uncorroborated CI was woefully insufficient

CI was unknown to the officer and he had no information on the CI’s basis of knowledge nor did he corroborate anything. The motion to suppress should have been granted. Chesney v. State, 2015 Miss. App. LEXIS 277 (May 19, 2015) [And the issuing magistrate is obviously a rubberstamp who never reads search warrant affidavits.]

Defendant’s stop was with reasonable suspicion for two things: violation of the terms of his state bond and excessive window tinting. Both were valid. United States v. Williams, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66393 (N.D. W.Va. May 5, 2015).*

The evidence supports the trial court’s finding that the defendant consented to a blood draw after initially refusing it. State v. Mitchell, 2015 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 393 (May 22, 2015).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Drug or alcohol testing, Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.