Defendant\u2019s Franks challenge fails because, even accepting it as true, there\u2019s still probable cause. United States v. Barclay, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12061 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 25, 2018).*<\/p>\n
\u201cProbable cause \u2018is not a high bar.\u2019 Kaley v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1090, 1103 (2014). \u2018It requires only the kind of fair probability on which reasonable and prudent [people,] not legal technicians, act.\u2019 Id. (citing Florida v. Harris, 133 S. Ct. 1050, 1055 (2013) (quoting Gates, 462 U.S. at 231, 238)) (internal quotations omitted) (alteration in original). A reviewing court should give \u2018great deference\u2019 to a magistrate judge’s probable cause determination and reverse only if it was \u2018arbitrarily\u2019 made. ….\u201d They had that here, and, even if not, the good faith exception applies.
\nUnited States v. Crooms, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13183 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 27, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s Franks challenge fails because, even accepting it as true, there\u2019s still probable cause. United States v. Barclay, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12061 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 25, 2018).* \u201cProbable cause \u2018is not a high bar.\u2019 Kaley v. United States, 134 … Continue reading