D.Kan.: Arrest for possession of cash wasn’t even reasonably valid under state law; exclusionary rule applies in federal court

Defendant was stopped, and the officer gave a warning. He continued asking questions which led to a consent search finding cash. The officer then arrested defendants for possession of the proceeds of a drug transaction. Only there were no probable cause for such an offense under Kansas law, which was clearly established at the time. The motion to suppress is granted, and the exclusionary rule should be applied. United States v. Kurtis, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137654 (D. Kan. Aug. 15, 2018).

The CI’s information was corroborated by the police and it led to a prior search before defendant’s arrest. There was probable cause for defendant’s arrest based on it. State v. Journet, 2018 ME 114, 2018 Me. LEXIS 117 (Aug. 14, 2018).*

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule, Informant hearsay, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.