MO: Collective knowledge for RS doesn’t require that every witness be called at the suppression hearing

Collective knowledge for reasonable suspicion doesn’t require that every witness be called at the suppression hearing. “While Appellant seemingly takes issue with the fact that the officer who took Victim’s report did not also testify, the Hensley test only requires the state to prove the origin of the reasonable suspicion, which in this case was the Victim’s report of her stolen vehicle. Simply put, Victim’s testimony at trial that she reported her vehicle as stolen provided the original factual basis for reasonable suspicion to execute a permissible Terry stop of Appellant. See Norfolk, 966 S.W.2d at 367-68.” In the Int. of M.A.S., 2024 Mo. App. LEXIS 146 (Mar. 12, 2024).

Defendant’s probation officer had reasonable suspicion for a search. Alternatively, the district court held that the “special needs” doctrine permitted the search without it. There was reasonable suspicion so the other issue isn’t decided. United States v. Alfaro, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 5907 (2d Cir. Mar. 12, 2024).*

This child porn defendant sought discovery from the government about server seizures by Australia and the Netherlands. The U.S. government attempted to get that information, but they couldn’t get it. There’s no duty there. United States v. Mitrovich, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 5931 (7th Cir. Mar. 12, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Admissibility of evidence, Collective knowledge, Foreign searches, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.