W.D.N.Y.: CI with good track record isn’t less believable because she had a relationship with the def which “soured”

The CI in this case had a track record. Then she was involved with defendant, and then she set defendant up, too. The fact their relationship “soured” didn’t undermine her credibility on the question of probable cause. United States v. Goolsby, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176196 (W.D.N.Y. July 15, 2016), adopted, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175926 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2016). [Maybe that’s what happens when you live with a snitch?]

Defendant lived with his father and sister, and he was on probation for methamphetamine offenses. His father and sister were concerned he’d relapsed because he was locked in his room for two days and acting “out of his mind.” They called the police, and the father consented to an entry into the bedroom to check on him. Defendant argued he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the room, but he wasn’t proved to be a tenant. He alleged he was; if he wasn’t his father could consent to the entry into the room. Assuming, arguendo, he was did, in fact, have a reasonable expectation of privacy against consent from his father, the entry was valid as a probation search under the state constitution. State v. Brooks, 2016 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 117 (Dec. 23, 2016).*

This entry was posted in Informant hearsay, Probation / Parole search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.