Federal courts had jurisdiction over defendant\u2019s criminal case despite his initial arrest after execution of a state search warrant. Calzada v. United States, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86622 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 13, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Disclosure of the CI who provided information for the search warrant is different than a \u201ctransactional witness\u201d who would be a potential trial witness. United States v. Mompremier, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86132 (E.D. Wis. May 17, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The officers had probable cause for defendant\u2019s stop without regard to what the CI said, so failure to corroborate the CI had no effect on the outcome. State v. Harrison, 2023-Ohio-1618 (3d Dist. May 15, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s stipulated plea agreement and PSR show there was reasonable suspicion for his stop. McAnally v. United States, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84163 (W.D. Mo. Apr. 24, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Federal courts had jurisdiction over defendant\u2019s criminal case despite his initial arrest after execution of a state search warrant. Calzada v. United States, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86622 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 13, 2023). Disclosure of the CI who provided information … Continue reading