The government suspected defendant of acquiring a pill press and got a sneak and peak warrant to look around and photograph inside his place. Later, they got a search warrant for the place and seized drugs. The government\u2019s knowledge of the coming shipment and allowing him to possess did not constitute outrageous governmental conduct since they did nothing to control or influence his actions. Their dog sniff in an apartment building\u2019s hallway was not unreasonable. \u201cWhite suggests that the hallway was constitutionally protected because it was locked and not open to the public. But what matters is not whether the hallway was open to the public, but whether it was considered a \u2018common\u2019 area.\u201d It was not curtilage. United States v. White, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151936 (D. Minn. Aug. 29, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cMcVay first argues that the affidavit failed to disclose that the confidential informant (CI) initially lied to police officers about her own activity selling drugs. Even assuming that omission of this information was intentionally or recklessly misleading, McVay has not shown that the omitted facts were material. To establish materiality, McVay must show that the omitted information was \u2018necessary to the finding of probable cause.\u2019\u201d It is wasn\u2019t. United States v. McVay, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 22613 (9th Cir. Aug. 28, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The officer observing a motorist speeding justifies a stop under the Fourth Amendment. State v. Brown, 2023-Ohio-3017 (11th Dist. Aug. 28, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The government suspected defendant of acquiring a pill press and got a sneak and peak warrant to look around and photograph inside his place. Later, they got a search warrant for the place and seized drugs. The government\u2019s knowledge of … Continue reading