State search warrant in bank robbery case erroneously omitted place to be searched, but it was in the incorporated affidavit which accompanied the warrant to the premises, and that cured the error. Also, initial illegal search of premises that was done without knowledge of the officers securing a search warrant for the premises did not taint the warrant. United States v. Knill, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47327 (M.D. Pa. June 29, 2007).<\/p>\n
Verbal consent given pre-Mirandizing supported district courts’ conclusions defendants consented. United States v. Yanez-Hernandez, 243 Fed. Appx. 234 (9th Cir. 2007)* (unpublished); United States v. Arana-Duarte, 244 Fed. Appx. 121 (9th Cir. 2007)* (unpublished). Credibility determination going to the officer supported finding of consent. State v. Bickel, 2007 Ohio 3356, 2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 3078 (5th Dist. June 29, 2007).*<\/p>\n
State officer had reasonable suspicion of drug usage from defendant’s demeanor, and consent and probable cause supported the search. The fact that the search did not take place until after a drug dog came in as well, an hour later, was not relevant in light of the probable cause. United States v. Reyes-Ugarte, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47400 (E.D. Mo. June 29, 2007).*<\/p>\n
Plaintiff in a \u00a7 1983 case was denied leave to add an illegal search claim to an excessive force claim. Plaintiff previously made such a claim in state court but did not make it when the case ended up in federal court until after discovery closed. Watson v. Trevino, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47241 (E.D. Mich. June 29, 2007).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading