{"id":1283,"date":"2008-01-11T04:40:34","date_gmt":"2007-08-25T21:21:40","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-08-25T21:21:40","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1283","title":{"rendered":"Defendant succeeds in a Franks<\/em> challenge in Mississippi"},"content":{"rendered":"

During the suppression hearing, the officer contradicted the critical details of the probable cause finding concerning when events happened, and a controlled buy was omitted. The affidavit as a whole lacked probable cause under Franks<\/a>. Roach v. State<\/a>, 2007 Miss. App. LEXIS 538 (August 21, 2007):<\/p>\n

P20. We note that there might be a substantial basis for probable cause had Officer Spooner related everything to Judge Parker, namely: (1) that another officer had worked with the informant once prior to the date in question, and (2) that the informant’s information had been corroborated by a controlled buy carried out by that same CI. However, none of this information was related. Under these circumstances, we find that probable cause did not exist for the issuance of the search warrant, and the fruits of the search warrant should be suppressed. Therefore, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.<\/p>\n

P21. We clarify that our holding is not, as the dissent suggests, that a confidential informant “can never give reliable information, so as to constitute probable cause, while serving for the first time as a confidential informant.” Rather, we hold that, under the circumstances of this case, particularly where the only corroboration of the CI’s statement was not presented to the magistrate issuing the search warrant, probable cause did not exist for the issuance of the search warrant. As we have already stated, the informant’s evidence would have been sufficient to sustain probable cause had the controlled buy been discussed with the magistrate issuing the search warrant<\/em>. We also note that the buy could have been disclosed to the magistrate without putting the information in the affidavit; however, Officer Spooner’s testimony did not indicate that the buy was ever mentioned to the magistrate in any way. Therefore, contrary to the argument made by the dissent, the omission was not made to protect the identity of the confidential informant. (emphasis in original)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion to suppress when he attempted three times to discard a fanny pack while running from the police, succeeding on the fourth try. When the police retrieved it, he disavowed that it was his, and this is a waiver of any reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment and the Hawai’i Constitution. State v. Kolia<\/a>, 116 Haw. 29, 169 P.3d 981 (2007).*<\/p>\n

Trial court improperly suppressed the stop of the defendant who was suspected of DUI drugs after running off an interstate highway in the early afternoon. He was found at a rest stop where he had locked the keys in his car, and he seemed to be under the influence. On the seat were rolling papers and the defendant had a prior for marijuana possession. On video, the defendant consented to a search of his car. People v. Damian<\/a>, 374 Ill. App. 3d 941, 873 N.E.2d 1, 313 Ill. Dec. 706 (5th Dist. 2007).*<\/p>\n

Trial court credited officer’s testimony that defendant failed to stop and rolled through a stop sign was a basis for his stop. Lewis v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 737 N.W.2d 591 (Minn. App. 2007).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1283","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1283","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1283"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1283\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1283"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1283"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1283"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}