LA1: Information negating PC should have been included, but doesn’t matter here

Omitted information didn’t negate probable cause. “When considering the totality of the other facts included in the affidavit, the negative lab results do not negate the existence of probable cause for the search warrant. Here, the trial court admonished the State for this oversight and agreed that the omitted lab result is ‘not a major part of the warrant, but still [is] a factor.’ Nevertheless, the trial court ruled that ‘there was enough presented’ to support the issuance of the warrant. We agree. This assignment of error is without merit.” State v. Hale, 2025 La. App. LEXIS 1749 (La. App. 1 Cir Sep. 19, 2025).*

“Much of Defendant’s argument simply argues inferences from the evidence in a manner more favorable to his position that he was unable to give voluntary consent based on his injury from the collision or his impairment, but we are bound by the trial court’s findings of fact which are not challenged as unsupported by the evidence.” State v. Armstrong, 2025 N.C. App. LEXIS 607 (Sep. 17, 2025).*

The court doesn’t find the officer’s testimony there was a “strong odor” of marijuana coming from the car to be credible. People v. Turnbull, 2025 VI SUPER 26, 2025 V.I. LEXIS 32 (Super. Ct. July 21, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.