Defendant pled in his motion to suppress there was a knock-and-announce violation, and the government responded with affidavits that knocking would be unsafe. Unrebutted, that\u2019s enough to deny a hearing. United States v. Moore, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155454 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 27, 2020).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant challenges the probable cause for the search warrant here, but the court recounts the wealth of information [and it isn\u2019t even close]. \u201cIn sum, there is simply no merit whatsoever to Holland’s claim that Trooper Panchik’s affidavit, on its face, fails to supply probable cause to search 269 Cumberland Street. The detailed and thorough affidavit leaves no doubt that \u201cthe magistrate had a substantial basis for \u2026 concluding that probable cause existed.\u2019 Miknevich, 638 F.3d at 182 (alteration in original) (quoting Gates, 462 U.S. at 238-39).\u201d Even his Franks challenge fails because, removing the allegedly offending information, there is plenty of probable cause. United States v. Holland, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155041 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 25, 2020).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant pled in his motion to suppress there was a knock-and-announce violation, and the government responded with affidavits that knocking would be unsafe. Unrebutted, that\u2019s enough to deny a hearing. United States v. Moore, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155454 (S.D. … Continue reading