D.Minn.: That officers could have been more careful and detailed in monitoring the CI doesn’t show a lack of PC

“Mr. Turner is correct that the use of a CRI during drug investigations is common. Moreover, the Court does not disagree that officers could have taken additional steps to yield an even higher degree of confidence that Mr. Turner was committing a crime during the controlled buys. But the law does not require that law enforcement officers employ every conceivable measure to establish probable cause: warrant applications need only establish a fair probability that the warrant will uncover evidence of a crime. … Nor does Mr. Turner cite to any authority suggesting that the common use of CRIs renders the information gained from them unreliable or unsupportive of probable cause.” United States v. Turner, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23761 (D. Minn. Feb. 10, 2025).*

This sheriff gets qualified immunity for looking at a cell phone dump for ultra vires allegedly looking for nude photos taken on the deputy’s duty time. The law was not clearly established at the time. Olson v. Cty. of Grant, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 3005 (9th Cir. Feb. 10, 2025).*

Officers responded to a group at a convenience store bragging about robbing thus scaring customers, and that other factors justified a frisk of defendant when he was encountered. United States v. Underwood, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21326 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 6, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Informant hearsay, Probable cause, Qualified immunity, Stop and frisk. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.