W.D.La.: Deciding against def after remand on suppression motion on different ground didn’t violate mandate

On remand from reversal of denial of defendant’s suppression motion, the court analyzed the evidence anew, albeit from a different perspective, and it denies the motion to suppress on different grounds. This does not violate the Fifth Circuit’s mandate. Defendant gets to conditionally plead anew if he wants to. United States v. Beene, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5059 (W.D.La. Jan. 11, 2017).

CI’s information was fresh and detailed. “‘An explicit and detailed description of alleged wrongdoing, along with a statement that the event was observed firsthand, entitles the [confidential informant’s] tip to greater weight than might otherwise be the case.’ Brundidge, 170 F.3d at 1353 (confidential informant’s ‘basis of knowledge was good’ where the informant gave officers ‘a detailed description of the drugs in the room and the sale of some of those drugs in his presence’) (citing Gates, 462 U.S. at 234).” United States v. Lambert, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7649 (S.D.Ga. Jan. 19, 2017).*

This entry was posted in Informant hearsay. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.