CA8: Omission of fact CI lied about prior murder for hire schemes wasn’t material enough where one recorded ptf

This was a murder for hire scheme. The affiant had good information that the CI was a notorious liar, having falsely alleged other schemes in the past. Here, however, there was “powerful” evidence of probable cause in recordings to back up the CI talking to the plaintiff. That made the prior false statements far less material. Howe v. Gilpin, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 9368 (8th Cir. Apr. 20, 2023).

There was probable cause for a traffic offense and reasonable suspicion for a drug investigation when defendant was stopped. The drug dog delay was reasonable. United States v. Rederick, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 9374 (8th Cir. Apr. 20, 2023).*

Defendant was unlawfully seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment before he consented to a search. He was the only person in the area. Two marked police vehicles, with at least three armed and uniformed officers in each, quickly pulled into an alley after him. They boxed in his car, four officers were approaching him before he agreed to be searched, and the officers asked him only accusatory questions, all suggesting they believed he had a gun on him. He twice denied having a gun; the officers did not accept his answer and instead asked if they could search him “just to make sure,” manifesting their disbelief in him and suggesting they were not going to let him walk away unless he could alleviate those suspicions. T.W. v. United States, 2023 D.C. App. LEXIS 111 (Apr. 20, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Dog sniff, Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion, Seizure. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.