Probable cause and a nexus to defendant\u2019s phone was shown because of arranging drug transactions through its apps. United States v. Hughes, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219482 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 4, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Probable cause didn\u2019t have to be decided because there was good faith. United States v. Harrison, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 30609 (6th Cir. Dec. 3, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cAlthough the criminal proceedings terminated in Barr’s favor, Barr’s malicious prosecution claim fails because she points to neither a misstatement nor an omission in Denmark’s supporting affidavit necessary to support the warrant. Her only meaningful allegation on this score is that the affidavit omitted that Taylor and Semper \u2018were convicted felons that were seeking release from jail and probable prison sentences at the time they made their statements.\u2019 But the affidavit expressly acknowledged that Taylor, the primary witness, was incarcerated when he spoke with the detectives. The omission of information about his felony status would not have undermined the warrant or prevented a finding of probable cause.\u201d Barr v. Denmark, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 30577 (11th Cir. Dec. 4, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Probable cause and a nexus to defendant\u2019s phone was shown because of arranging drug transactions through its apps. United States v. Hughes, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219482 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 4, 2024). Probable cause didn\u2019t have to be decided because … Continue reading