CI was not shown to be reliable or credible to the police. Also, his statements about possession of drugs on the premises six months earlier added nothing about the day in question. \u201c[T]he sale of drugs out of a residence is not inherently ongoing\u201d; something has to be shown of a continuing nature. United States v. Ervin, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2885 (E.D. Tenn. January 14, 2010).*<\/p>\n
In an ongoing case from San Diego where three youths were arrested for the murder of a friend, prosecuted for a year and then DNA was finally tested that cleared them, a strip search claim and a claim over their search for blood without probable cause only survive. \u201cUnder clearly established Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit law, no reasonable police officer could have believed that the desire to prove that another person (presumably Michael) killed Stephanie established probable cause to draw Stephen and Cheryl’s blood. The district court properly denied summary judgment and qualified immunity.\u201d Crowe v. County of San Diego<\/a>, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 894 (9th Cir. January 14, 2010, amended January 27, 2010) (argued June 1, 2008).* See Basically Law<\/a> (“The Ninth Circuit ruled that several officers who used outrageous and manipulative interrogation techniques on teenagers are not entitled to qualified immunity. If you want to know how police can manipulate a confession out of vulnerable, and innocent, people, read the facts of this case.”); Law.com<\/a> (“A 9th Circuit panel on Thursday reinstated many of the legal claims of a Southern California man, who, as a 14-year-old boy, falsely confessed to killing his younger sister after a series of grueling and coercive interviews with police. [\u00b6] Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, Judge Sidney Thomas said authorities’ marathon questioning of Michael Crowe and his accused accomplice, Aaron Houser, ‘shocks the conscience.'”).<\/p>\n The burden of proof for consent in federal court is preponderance of the evidence, not \u201cclear and convincing\u201d as in Tennessee state courts, and the burden was satisfied here. United States v. Roberts, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2855 (E.D. Tenn. January 14, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading