Sufficient nexus was shown for a search warrant for defendant\u2019s home from his observed drug dealing on the street. He drove to the drug deals from his home, and other intel had him dealing at home. United States v. Galaviz-Gaxiola, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86330 (D.Utah June 30, 2016).*<\/p>\n
The District Court doesn\u2019t find the testimony of the officer observing alleged drug transactions from a nearby rooftop to be credible at the suppression hearing. His reports weren\u2019t the same as his grand jury testimony which wasn\u2019t the same as his suppression hearing testimony about the movement of people and the alleged exchange of money on the street. \u201cIn sum, even assuming that Officer Kinane’s testimony concerning his rooftop observations could provide a basis for \u2018reasonable suspicion,\u2019 his testimony is not credible.\u201d Text messages found after the arrest can\u2019t be used to determine probable cause for a warrantless arrest. His encounter with the police can\u2019t be described as voluntary. United States v. McDow, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84649 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2016).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Sufficient nexus was shown for a search warrant for defendant\u2019s home from his observed drug dealing on the street. He drove to the drug deals from his home, and other intel had him dealing at home. United States v. Galaviz-Gaxiola, … Continue reading