E.D.Mich.: There was nexus for SW to def’s address from present and observed activities there

“In light of the above, there is a sufficient nexus between defendant and the Bunert address such that it was more likely than not that evidence of drug activity would be at the residence. Defendant was seen at Bunert both before and after drug transactions. Considering that totality of the circumstances, including the level of detail of defendant’s observed activities, defendant’s known prior drug activity, the corroborating information from confidential sources, and defendant’s consistent presence at Bunert, the affidavit is supported by probable cause.” United States v. Gojcaj, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17941 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 5, 2018).*

Execution of a search warrant in 2008 led to an investigation that was still going on in 2015 when plaintiff filed suit to recover defense costs under the insurance policy. The claim is barred under time limit in the policy or an arbitration clause. Crowley Mar. Corp. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20787 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 8, 2018).*

This entry was posted in Nexus. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.