The fact the accelerant detection dog alerted supports probable cause despite later negative lab tests. State v. Hale, 2025 La. App. LEXIS 1749 (La. App. 1 Cir Sep. 19, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Officers did not violate curtilage by observing shell casings in defendant\u2019s yard during a knock-and-talk. United States v. Havins, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 24406 (9th Cir. Sep. 12, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe Court is not persuaded by the Defendant’s argument. The fact that there are minor inconsistencies regarding the location of the pound of marijuana or the level of activity at the house does not establish a Franks hearing is required here. As discussed in the Recommendation, even assuming the Defendant meets the first prong of the Franks analysis, the totality of the circumstances presents a fair probability that illegal activity was occurring at the home. Every vehicle stopped leaving the residence was found to conceal contraband \u2014 drugs and a significant quantity of machine-gun-conversion devices.\u201d United States v. Lausane, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184321 (M.D. Ala. Sep. 19, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The fact the accelerant detection dog alerted supports probable cause despite later negative lab tests. State v. Hale, 2025 La. App. LEXIS 1749 (La. App. 1 Cir Sep. 19, 2025). Officers did not violate curtilage by observing shell casings in … Continue reading