“Based on the pattern of conduct alleged in the affidavit and the proximity in time of the last controlled purchase to the application for the search warrant, the allegations contained in the affidavit were not stale. Those allegations indicated that there was a fair probability that evidence of illegal drugs and firearms would be found at the defendant’s 103 Coleman Street residence.” United States v. Shan, 563 F. Supp. 2d 361 (D. Conn. 2008).*<\/p>\n
Evidence of defendant’s interest in property searched (unopened mail) was offered to show that defendant fled from the premises, which was harmless at best, so the merits of the search do not need to be inquired into. State v. McCool<\/a>, 211 Ore. App. 56 (2008).*<\/p>\n Threat of illegal searches directed at plaintiff was speculative at best, so court would not grant an injunction. Nenninger v. United States Forest Serv., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51212 (W.D. Ark. July 3, 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading