Officers had Buchanan\u2019s house under surveillance for a long time, and recorded drug deals inside. On the day in question, however, they stopped McCoy leaving the house and they had nothing at all on him. Defendant\u2019s stop failed under Ybarra: \u201cIn sum, the Government\u2019s argument that probable cause existed on these facts rests on \u2018mere propinquity\u2019 to a known individual independently suspected of criminal activity. \u2018Mere propinquity,\u2019 of course, does not rise to the level of probable cause, and therefore the court rejects the argument that probable cause supported McCoy\u2019s seizure.\u201d United States v. McCoy, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106779 (N.D. Ohio September 20, 2011).<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s consent was shown by the fact he was Mirandized before. United States v. Toler<\/a>, 444 Fed. Appx. 561 (3d Cir. 2011).*<\/p>\n Defendants\u2019 Franks challenge based on records that the government had not yet seen when the search warrant affidavit had been presented to the USMJ was unavailing because the government did with withhold the information. United States v. Hollnagel, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106516 (N.D. Ill. September 20, 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading