CA8: Failure to mention CI’s convictions or payments for information wasn’t material

The warrant affiant’s failure to mention the CI was paid or had convictions wasn’t material to change the outcome of the probable cause determination. With CIs, things like that can be assumed. United States v. Riaski, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1890 (8th Cir. Jan. 29, 2024).

This search warrant in a years’ long wire fraud conspiracy case was not stale. Money launderers also keep records. Nexus was shown because the records sought to show the crime were the type commonly kept at home. United States v. Ohwovoriole, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14413 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 5, 2024).*

A parent doesn’t have standing to assert a search and seizure claim of his child. Sinanan v. Children, Youth & Family Division, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14480 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 26, 2024).*

The officers’ threat to get a search warrant was not baseless. They had probable cause. Therefore, consent wasn’t coerced. State v. Nipper, 2024 W. Va. LEXIS 16 (Jan. 25, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Probable cause, Staleness, Standing, Voluntariness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.