Good faith first, merits second. Defendant had to show that the warrant was so lacking in probable cause that an officer couldn\u2019t rely on it, and he didn\u2019t. United States v. Alvarez, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6440 (5th Cir. April 8, 2014)* (not on court\u2019s website).<\/p>\n
The government seized virtually all patient records (2,747) for prescription drug fraud, but the defense was not interested in partial suppression as a remedy; only total suppression which is denied. It appeared that nearly all of the files were suspect. \u201cHowever, given the nature of the practice, Wetselaar’s admission that \u2018pretty much … all\u2019 of the files contained prescriptions for controlled substances, and the high proportion of files satisfying the terms of the warrant under either parties’ analysis, the Court cannot find either flagrant disregard for the terms of the warrant, or that the Government was engaged in indiscriminate fishing.\u201d United States v. Wetselaar, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48365 (D. Nev. April 7, 2014), R&R 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186891 (D. Nev. December 31, 2013).<\/p>\n
Officers were called for assistance to a man on the ground next to a bicycle. It appeared that the man was high because he was incoherent. A search of the man\u2019s person and bag was justified. United States v. Campos, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48458 (W.D. Mo. March 7, 2014).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Good faith first, merits second. Defendant had to show that the warrant was so lacking in probable cause that an officer couldn\u2019t rely on it, and he didn\u2019t. United States v. Alvarez, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6440 (5th Cir. April … Continue reading