\u201c[T]he government’s seventeen-day delay between the warrantless seizure of Thompson’s property and the issuance of the search warrants was reasonable. The first factor favors the government because seventeen days\u2014eleven of which were business days\u2014is relatively short and far shorter than other instances in which courts have deemed a delay in securing a warrant reasonable.\u201d United States v. Thompson, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 228675 (D. Mass. Dec. 18, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Driving several seconds on the fog line was reasonable suspicion for a stop. United States v. Garcia, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229432 (N.D. Okla. Dec. 19, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cAssuming, arguendo, that Defendant has standing to raise the concerns here at issue, the affidavits set forth ample indicia of probable cause; are sufficiently particular as to the items to be searched; demonstrate the required \u2018probable cause nexus,\u2019 \u2026 and are neither vague nor conclusory. \u2026 (\u2018probable cause is not a \u201chigh bar\u201d\u2019). Contrary to the suggestion of Defendant’s counsel, these are not \u2018bare bones\u2019 warrants that might merit striking. \u2026 Moreover, even if the Court were to now find the warrants lacking\u2014which it does not\u2014the officers relied in good faith on the two search warrants at issue and the good faith exception would apply.\u201d United States v. Holmes, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229724 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 19, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201c[T]he government’s seventeen-day delay between the warrantless seizure of Thompson’s property and the issuance of the search warrants was reasonable. The first factor favors the government because seventeen days\u2014eleven of which were business days\u2014is relatively short and far shorter than … Continue reading