CA1: Failure to show CI’s basis of knowledge or corroborate anything was no PC

In a grow operation search warrant, merely calling the informant “reliable” adds nothing other than the affiant’s opinion. There was nothing that corroborated the informant or showed his basis of knowledge. The motion to suppress was properly granted. Also, the choice of a “comparator” house for electrical usage was essentially misleading to the magistrate. United States v. Gifford, 727 F.3d 92 (1st Cir. 2013).

Defendant never alleges a possessory or privacy interest in the car that was searched, so he has no standing. United States v. Doe, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114766 (W.D. N.C. August 14, 2013),* R&R 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114762 (W.D. N.C. June 21, 2013).*

The officer had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant when he saw defendant’s hand move to his waist and saw what appeared to be the grip of a gun. United States v. Goss, 537 Fed. Appx. 276 (4th Cir. 2013).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.