The probation search of defendant’s bedroom wasn’t justified by the reasonable suspicion that authorized it. “The Commonwealth’s contention that Valenti’s entry into the bedroom was justified as a protective sweep is equally unavailing.” Special needs didn’t work for the state here either because the state didn’t put on anything to justify it. Commonwealth v. Judge, 2019 Mass. App. LEXIS 37 (Mar. 28, 2019).
The court recounts the detail of the CI’s information and the fact it was against penal interest and concludes that there was probable cause. Defendant statement for the first time on appeal that the informants were liars wasn’t submitted to the district court and wasn’t decided by it [and isn’t a Franks issue anyway]. It was thus waived. Furthermore, the motion in the trial court wasn’t timely and could have been rejected for that because there was no justification shown for the late suppression motion to permit a later filing. Mathewson v. State, 2019 WY 36, 2019 Wyo. LEXIS 36 (Mar. 27, 2019).*