The exclusionary rule does not apply to alien removal proceedings. Pietrzak v. Mukasey, 260 Fed. Appx. 337 (2d Cir. 2008).*<\/p>\n
The search of defendant’s vehicle would inevitably have occurred as an inventory because his license was expired, so his other arguments do not need to be resolved. United States v. Martinez<\/a>, 512 F.3d 1268 (10th Cir. 2008).*<\/p>\n Drug search warrant with information from a CI that was a month old by the time the CI could give the precise location of defendant’s home was not stale. [This is an adoption of the USMJ’s R&R, so the details are lacking.] United States v. Deleon-Bayardo, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2767 (D. Minn. January 14, 2008).*<\/p>\n One officer was not entitled to qualified immunity for a search warrant that was issued without probable cause or a reason to believe it was properly issued. KRL v. Estate of Moore<\/a>, 512 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2008), prior appeal KRL v. Moore, 384 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2004):<\/p>\n Thus, when analyzing Hall’s role pursuant to the January 13 warrant, it is most useful to ask the question posed in Saucier<\/em>: “whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer [in Hall’s position] that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” 533 U.S. at 202. Given his leadership role in the overall investigation, Hall acted unreasonably when he relied on the January 13 warrant without first ensuring that the warrant was facially valid. As we previously concluded, any reasonable officer making such an inquiry would conclude that the discovery of a ledger and several checks predating the allegedly fraudulent activity by five years did not provide sufficient probable cause to search for documents dating back to 1990. See KRL<\/em>, 384 F.3d at 1117.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading