Defendant was subjected to a search incident for false identification. His overlong stop otherwise didn\u2019t cause that. United States v. Anderson, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 5997 (10th Cir. Mar. 14, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cTeixeira struggles to throw shade on the reliability of K.M.’s statements. He claims, in a conclusory fashion, that search warrant affidavits are \u2018prone to error\u2019 and, thus, inherently unreliable. This generalization, though, is of dubious force. Shaming search warrant affidavits on a categorical basis is no more persuasive than arguing, say, that all police officers are liars or that all criminal defendants are inherently incredible witnesses. Each search warrant affidavit is distinctive and \u2014 like any other affidavit \u2014 must be judged on its own merits.\u201d United States v. Teixeira, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 5828 (1st Cir. Mar. 10, 2023).* \u201cProne to error\u201d means nothing under Gates and Leon. There are often nonmaterial errors. They are done in haste. That\u2019s to be expected. Nonmaterial errors don’t affect the outcome.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s Franks challenge fails both prongs: no showing of deliberate or reckless falsehood or that it was material to the finding of probable cause. United States v. Torres-Rojas, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41038 (D.P.R. Mar. 10, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant was subjected to a search incident for false identification. His overlong stop otherwise didn\u2019t cause that. United States v. Anderson, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 5997 (10th Cir. Mar. 14, 2023).* \u201cTeixeira struggles to throw shade on the reliability of … Continue reading