N.D.Ohio: “Mere propinquity” to a house under investigation was not enough to stop

Officers had Buchanan’s house under surveillance for a long time, and recorded drug deals inside. On the day in question, however, they stopped McCoy leaving the house and they had nothing at all on him. Defendant’s stop failed under Ybarra: “In sum, the Government’s argument that probable cause existed on these facts rests on ‘mere propinquity’ to a known individual independently suspected of criminal activity. ‘Mere propinquity,’ of course, does not rise to the level of probable cause, and therefore the court rejects the argument that probable cause supported McCoy’s seizure.” United States v. McCoy, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106779 (N.D. Ohio September 20, 2011).

Defendant’s consent was shown by the fact he was Mirandized before. United States v. Toler, 444 Fed. Appx. 561 (3d Cir. 2011).*

Defendants’ Franks challenge based on records that the government had not yet seen when the search warrant affidavit had been presented to the USMJ was unavailing because the government did with withhold the information. United States v. Hollnagel, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106516 (N.D. Ill. September 20, 2011).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.