Defendant argued that the officer\u2019s use of \u201cseveral firearms\u201d cases in the affidavit for the search warrant was misleading under Franks. Since \u201cseveral\u201d means, essentially, more than one and not too many, and defendant\u2019s priors aren\u2019t yet firmly known, this isn\u2019t false or misleading. The CIs were, inferentially, known to the officers in the affidavit for the search warrant, and the affidavit as a whole showed probable cause. \u201cIn addition, an informant who has a personal interest in another’s safety can be afforded heightened reliability, because \u2018personal interest can create \u201ca strong motive to supply accurate information.\u201d\u2019\u201d United States v. Thomas, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117892 (N.D.W.Va. Sept. 1, 2016).<\/p>\n
Defense counsel did, in fact, move to suppress evidence and that issue lost on appeal. Rodriguez v. United States, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117450 (E.D.Tex. Aug. 4, 2016),* adopted, COA denied, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116663 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2016).*<\/p>\n
\u201cShe also freely granted consent for the agents to review her cell phone information.\u201d United States v. Stein, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117573 (W.D.La. July 13, 2016),* adopted, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116954 (W.D. La., Aug. 26, 2016).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant argued that the officer\u2019s use of \u201cseveral firearms\u201d cases in the affidavit for the search warrant was misleading under Franks. Since \u201cseveral\u201d means, essentially, more than one and not too many, and defendant\u2019s priors aren\u2019t yet firmly known, this … Continue reading