OH7: Officer taking the Fifth at suppression hearing because of other matters doesn’t prove Franks violation

At defendant’s suppression hearing, one of the officers was relieved of duty due to other misconduct, and he took the Fifth. On what remains in the affidavit and on the totality doesn’t otherwise show a Franks violation. State v. Hartung, 2023-Ohio-1736, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 1743 (7th Dist. May 23, 2023).

The alert for a well-trained drug dog is probable cause. Here, the dog was accurate 90% of the time. United States v. Plancarte, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90338 (W.D. Wis. May 23, 2023).*

It is well settled that the standard for reasonable suspicion is on the totality of circumstances. Defendant’s attacks here are individual. United States v. Young, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 12783 (10th Cir. May 24, 2023).*

Plaintiff is a Chinese national, and his claims against an FBI agent aren’t appropriate for Bivens because of counterintelligence issues. He does appear, however, to state a claim under the FTCA. Xiaoxing Xi v. Haugen, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 12784 (3d Cir. May 24, 2023).*

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Dog sniff, Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.