The fact the affidavit had the address but no city and county doesn\u2019t violate the particularity requirement. Yes, it would have been better to have done so, but the officers still could find the place they were looking for, so there is no lack of particularity. Even if the court credited defendant\u2019s claim that there was a Franks issue, removing that information from the affidavit still left probable cause, so there\u2019s no relief for that. United States v. Hughes, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148666 (M.D.Ala. Oct. 27, 2016).<\/p>\n
Officers had probable cause for defendant\u2019s stop. \u201cHere, through 911 calls and developing information from witnesses, the officers established that a white GMC Yukon or \u2018Yukon -like\u2019 vehicle with distinguishing halogen headlights left the scene of a homicide. The first call to police came at about 10:05 PM. Only about 15 minutes later, Gilbert spotted a vehicle matching the available description; he saw the vehicle in a place where the fleeing vehicle reasonably could have been about 15 minutes after the first call to police.\u201d United States v. Dalmau, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140715 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2016).*<\/p>\n
Another Playpen warrant upheld. United States v. Dzwonczyk, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141297 (D.Neb. Oct. 5, 2016),* adopted, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178020 (D.Neb. Dec. 23, 2016).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The fact the affidavit had the address but no city and county doesn\u2019t violate the particularity requirement. Yes, it would have been better to have done so, but the officers still could find the place they were looking for, so … Continue reading