Affidavit for search warrant based on a dog alert did not have to include the dog\u2019s history and training to show PC. United States v. Freeman, 666 F. Supp. 2d 454 (D. Del. 2009).<\/p>\n
Court’s should not “flyspeck” a search warrant affidavit. Reasonable inferences here support PC, and it was obtained and executed in good faith. United States v. Palma, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111058 (N.D. Cal. December 19, 2008):<\/p>\n
“Normally, [courts] do not ‘flyspeck’ the affidavit supporting a search warrant through de novo review; rather, the magistrate judge’s determination ‘should be paid great deference.’ In addition, the Supreme Court has reminded reviewing courts that ‘[a]lthough in a particular case it may not be easy to determine when an affidavit demonstrates the existence of probable cause, resolution of doubtful or marginal cases in this area should largely be determined by the preference to be accorded to warrants.'” [United States v. Kelley, 482 F.3d 1047,] 1050-51 [(9th Cir. 2007)] (citations omitted). <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Officers responded to a shots fired call, and defendant saw them and fled, discarding a gun. The gun was not the product of any illegal police conduct. Commonwealth v. Jeudy<\/a>, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 579, 915 N.E.2d 580 (2009).* (Caution: This case also discusses the policy of the exclusionary rule when it was completely unnecessary. See following post<\/a>. Is this a disturbing trend?)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading