MA: Two isolated controlled buys 20 days before SW issued were stale

The officer’s false statement he was present for a third controlled buy satisfied Franks and was excised. Defense counsel showed that it couldn’t have happened. The remainder says two controlled buys, and these were found to be isolated transactions, the last was 20 days before the warrant issued. Because drugs dissipate relatively quickly, the warrant was stale when it issued. Suppression affirmed. Commonwealth v. Mallory, 106 Mass. App. Ct. 689 (Apr. 21, 2026).

State habeas petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim was barred by Stone because he had the opportunity to raise it in state court. Gardiner v. Howard, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 11124 (6th Cir. Apr. 17, 2026).*

In a tax case, there was nexus to defendant’s home office for a warrant for records. The tax business operated from there. United States v. Conner, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85414 (D. Colo. Apr. 17, 2026).*

Defendant’s arrest for a hand-to-hand drug sale justified a search incident. Guzman v. State, 2026 Md. App. LEXIS 456 (App. Apr. 17, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Issue preclusion, Nexus, Search incident, Staleness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.