MI: PC for SW completely lacking, so no GFE

“As noted by dissenting Judge Garrett, the search-warrant affidavit failed to connect the firearms and firearm-related items listed in the search warrant with the suspected criminal activity. Therefore, there was not probable cause to believe ‘that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.’ Illinois v Gates, 462 US 213, 238 (1983). Further, as noted by Judge Garrett, the affidavit was so lacking in indicia of probable cause that reliance on it was objectively unreasonable. There were no allegations that the defendant used a firearm to commit a crime. Therefore, the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply and the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress. See People v Goldston, 470 Mich 523, 531 (2004). We REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this order.” People v. Thomson, 2025 Mich. LEXIS 2211 (Nov. 26, 2025), reversing 2025 Mich. App. LEXIS 3294 (Apr. 28, 2025) (unpublished). The dissent relied on is here.

It was reasonable for the officer to conclude defendant consented to a search of his car despite defendant being under the influence of drugs. United States v. Goodman, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 232957 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 27, 2025).*

The government still gets to retain defendant’s cell phone for the duration of the case. It’s still evidence. United States v. Richmond, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 232885 (D.S.D. Nov. 25, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Probable cause, Rule 41(g) / Return of property. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.