CA11: Use of def’s nickname was PC where officer could connect it to def

The use of defendant’s nickname by the CI was sufficient when the officers could equate that with defendant, and Wong Sun is distinguished where the officers couldn’t. Entry for a protective sweep before the search warrant was issued didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment because there was a reasonable basis for it. United States v. Johnson, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10388 (11th Cir. Apr. 9, 2019).

The district court credited the officers’ testimony that supported its conclusion that defendant consented, and the evidence supports that conclusion. United States v. Sallis, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10408 (8th Cir. Apr. 9, 2019).*

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

Comments are closed.