N.D.Ohio: Def’s going home after a drug deal shows nexus for SW for house

“Here, the affidavit provides that the confidential informant had been providing information to the task force for 11 months, he had no criminal convictions, and his information has never been found to be false or misleading. (Aff. ¶ 13.) This, alone, is sufficient to support the magistrate’s reliance on the information supplied by the confidential informant.” Here it was also “corroborated by surveillance, wiretaps, and GPS tracking data.” The fact the defendant went home after the drug transaction showed nexus to it. United States v. Fitzgerald, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164288 (N.D.Ohio Nov. 29, 2016).

Summary judgment against plaintiff’s § 1983 case was proper because there was probable cause for the search. Summary judgment against the excessive force claim, however, was reversed because a jury could conclude it was. Mackovska v. City of Garden Grove, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21243 (9th Cir. Nov. 28, 2016).*

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Informant hearsay, Nexus. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.