E.D. Ark.: Hudson essentially means knock-and-announce violation is irrelevant

Defendant’s knock-and-announce claim would fail as a matter of law under Hudson, so the court will not even address it. United States v. Taggart, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56425 (E.D. Ark. July 8, 2008).*

In plaintiff’s § 1983 case against the police for an alleged excessive search of his house, taking the evidence in the best light possible, the police lawfully conducted a protective sweep. Also, bringing a dog onto the premises during the search was not unreasonable. Peals v. Terre Haute Police Dep’t, 535 F.3d 621 (7th Cir. 2008).*

First time informant was shown to be reliable by the monitoring of his phone call with the defendant. United States v. Turrentine, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56413 (E.D. Mo. July 23, 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.