\u201cAs indicated, however, the issue is not whether the affiant omitted information the issuing
\njudge may have found relevant; rather, the focus is on the affiant’s state of mind. United States
\nv. Jones, 208 F.3d 603, 607 (7th Cir. 2000). In the context of omissions, the defendant \u2018must
\noffer direct evidence of the affiant’s state of mind or inferential evidence that the affiant had
\nobvious reasons for omitting facts in order to prove deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard.\u2019
\nUnited States v. McNeese, 901 F.2d 585, 594 (7th Cir. 1990). Defendant fails to do so here.\u201d United States v. Jones, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182202 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 17, 2019).<\/p>\n
Defendant is charged with criminal civil rights violations for excessive force. He claims lack of fair notice that the Fourth Amendment was violated. The court disagrees and finds the law of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment well settled. United States v. Wheaten, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182129 (D.N.J. Oct. 21, 2019).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cAs indicated, however, the issue is not whether the affiant omitted information the issuing judge may have found relevant; rather, the focus is on the affiant’s state of mind. United States v. Jones, 208 F.3d 603, 607 (7th Cir. 2000). … Continue reading