Officer\u2019s alleged threat to break down the door stated in a nice tone of voice was not coercive, even if true, because the officer could have. On the totality, there was consent to enter to execute the arrest warrant because it\u2019s clear that the consenter wanted defendant out. The view inside led to a search warrant. United States v. Hankerson, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191820 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 20, 2022)* (\u201cPerhaps most importantly, it does not appear that Detective Von Leue’s \u2018threat\u2019 had any real impact on Ms. Mathis. Based on the testimony at the evidentiary hearing, it appears that Ms. Mathis wanted Washington out of her home first and foremost, telling the officers what room they would locate Washington in and even offering to go in and get him herself.\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s claim that the algorithm involved in the software to search for child porn on his computer was somehow a Franks violation isn\u2019t. First, he doesn\u2019t back that up except by essentially fantastic allegations and suggestions, i.e. no evidence. Second, how would that defeat probable cause? Doesn\u2019t say. United States v. Gray, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191656 (W.D. Va. Oct. 20, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The search warrant was for firearms, and it incorporated information that defendant possessed a shotgun. That made the shotgun subject to seizure. United States v. Smith, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191689 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Officer\u2019s alleged threat to break down the door stated in a nice tone of voice was not coercive, even if true, because the officer could have. On the totality, there was consent to enter to execute the arrest warrant because … Continue reading