Defendant\u2019s PO received a daily brief from the police that mentioned that defendant was in a car stopped and identified as a gang member. One of his conditions of parole was to avoid gang activity. That was justification for a parole search. United States v. Gay, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97470 (W.D.Pa. July 27, 2015).*<\/p>\n
Weighing the testimony, the court concludes that $337 was seized from the defendant, not $1,100 as he alleged, and he is entitled to return under Rule 41(g). United States v. Rodgers, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97518 (E.D.N.C. July 27, 2015).*<\/p>\n
\u201cThe affiant stated that he conducted multiple controlled buys from Joseph over the course of several months, and that the informant purchased a quantity of heroin from Joseph within two to three days prior to the applicant’s presentation of the application for search warrant.\u201d This is a pattern of activity that shows the information wasn\u2019t stale. United States v. Joseph, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97257 (W.D.Ky. July 27, 2015).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s PO received a daily brief from the police that mentioned that defendant was in a car stopped and identified as a gang member. One of his conditions of parole was to avoid gang activity. That was justification for a … Continue reading