Defendant\u2019s allegations of the police not saying in the warrant affidavit the CI was reliable doesn\u2019t matter because the affidavit for warrant shows otherwise why the CI was credited. There was probable cause. To the extent this would be considered a Franks motion, it fails. United States v. McLaughlin, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65252 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 10, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In addition, the Court finds that Mr. McLaughlin was not unlawfully detained by law enforcement outside of his house in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The circumstances present during the time Mr. McLaughlin was outside his house, as set forth above and incorporated herein, lead to the conclusion that Mr. McLaughlin was not illegally detained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Detective Dick’s verbal direction to Mr. McLaughlin to \u2018stay over here,\u2019 was given in support of maintaining the integrity of the ongoing search of the house and for the safety of law enforcement. The direction was delivered in a neutral tone, with no show of weapons, and no physical contact with Mr. McLaughlin himself. While he was outside, Mr. McLaughlin was never told he could not leave, and no officer obstructed his ability to walk away. Thus, the Court finds no Fourth Amendment violation occurred outside the house.\u201d Moreover, he was not \u201cin custody\u201d on the totality, and his statement was voluntary. United States v. McLaughlin, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65249 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 10, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s allegations of the police not saying in the warrant affidavit the CI was reliable doesn\u2019t matter because the affidavit for warrant shows otherwise why the CI was credited. There was probable cause. To the extent this would be considered … Continue reading