NY4: State didn’t show that CI actually existed; reversed

The state didn’t make a sufficient showing required by NY law that the CI actually existed. The motion to suppress should have been granted. People v. Givans, 2019 NY Slip Op 02220, 2019 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2237 (4th Dept. Mar. 22, 2019).*

In a Medicare fraud case, the affidavit was detailed and the information wasn’t stale because the operation was ongoing. United States v. Douglas, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47801 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 22, 2019).*

The search warrant for defendant’s cell phone did not lack particularity. State v. Roden, 296 Ore. App. 604 (Mar. 22, 2019).*

This entry was posted in Informant hearsay, Particularity, Staleness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.