In a case from three days ago in Texas, the court started with [what I consider] the [faulty] premise that applicability of the good faith exception should be discussed first, and then whether the warrant was issued with probable cause under Gates. The result here is a tortured opinion of search and seizure issues as they relate to good faith, thereby making the case far more difficult to decide. In one-fourth the time, the court could have found the affidavit for the search warrant satisfied Gates because of the informant’s rich detail of buying cocaine from defendant\u2019s house, which he then took the police to, especially given the presumption of validity of a search warrant. The search warrant application was not \u201cbare bones,\u201d so the GFE applies. United States v. Campos, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11037 (N.D. Tex. February 9, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Defendant was not in custody and not advised of his right to refuse a consent search, which he had no right to anyway. Consent was valid. United States v. Wilke, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10937 (E.D. Wis. February 9, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Defendant who did not challenge the search of his property cannot challenge the statements after the search as a product of an illegal search. United States v. Mwangi, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10955 (N.D. Ga. January 15, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s failure to immediately stop for a traffic offense that had occurred in a high crime area, coupled with his furtive gesture in the car, was reasonable suspicion for a patdown. United States v. Wilke, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124792 (E.D. Wis. December 21, 2009).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading