\u201cTurning to the facts of the instant case, the Court must resolve the central question: did Nations see Defendant commit a traffic violation? Having listened to Nations’ testimony, observed him in open court, and reviewed the video and written transcript and narrative, the Court finds that he did. As such, the Court does not address whether the tip provided an independent basis for reasonable suspicion.\u201d United States v. Zeno, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140967 (M.D.La. July 28, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The affidavit for warrant showed that defendant\u2019s drug operation was ongoing, so it was not stale by the time the warrant issued. \u201cGiven that the anonymous tip was substantially corroborated as to some of its details, Maldanado and Newman were justified in their reliance on the other portions of the anonymous tip \u2014 in light of the totality of the information in the supporting affidavit \u2014 in arriving at probable cause and applying for the search warrant.\u201d Also, the ambiguity when a controlled buy occurred wasn\u2019t determinative. United States v. Strange, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140584 (E.D.N.C. July 28, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A user of defendant\u2019s computer found apparent child pornography in the recycle bin of defendant\u2019s computer, and that was relayed to the police who had probable cause for a search warrant. Hutcheson v. State<\/a>, 2021 Ga. App. LEXIS 401 (July 28, 2021).*cf<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u201cTurning to the facts of the instant case, the Court must resolve the central question: did Nations see Defendant commit a traffic violation? Having listened to Nations’ testimony, observed him in open court, and reviewed the video and written transcript … Continue reading