D.Neb.: The fact of omissions from the affidavit for warrant that might have made it less incriminating doesn’t help any here; there was PC and evidence to be found

The fact the omissions from the warrant application might make it appear less incriminating doesn’t help here; the warrant was based on jail calls and pointed to evidence in defendant’s safe. That’s not a Franks violation. United States v. Wright, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98372 (D. Neb. May 23, 2025).

Where Georgia officers seized money and transferred it to Alabama officers for forfeiture, the Alabama court had no jurisdiction without an Alabama court issuing some kind of order. Routier v. State, 2025 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 65 (May 23, 2025).*

Knock-and-talk led to consent entry then probable cause: “Herein, the officers received repeated tips, months apart, concerning the possible drug transactions at the defendant’s residence and decided to conduct a knock and talk investigation. Buckhalter was alone in the residence when the police arrived, had been staying there for days, had a suitcase and clothes there, was doing her laundry there, and had a gun on the dresser in the master bedroom. Considering the foregoing, we find the officers reasonably concluded that Buckhalter had shared authority to consent to their entry of the home. They were lawfully in the home once the consent was given. Upon entering the home, they saw suspected drug paraphernalia on the counter. At that point, the officers had probable cause to conduct the protective sweep.” State v. Augustine, 2025 La. App. LEXIS 982 (La. App. 1 Cir May 23, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Forfeiture, Franks doctrine, Knock and talk. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.