A ShotSpotter alert of 16 gunshots from the vicinity of defendant\u2019s home confirmed by witnesses in a car leaving the area was justification for exigent entry onto the curtilage. \u201cSince the addition of the omitted information does not disturb the probable cause in the warrant to search Defendants’ home, there were no material omissions, and Defendants are not entitled to an evidentiary hearing under Franks or suppression of the evidence recovered from the search.\u201d United States v. Gonzalez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224600 (S.D. Fla. Sep. 26, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe evidence of record and the facts pleaded by Penascino show that the arrest was permitted under Pennsylvania law as the probable cause standard was met. Nothing before the Court indicates that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest. Thus, Penascino cannot show that he was falsely imprisoned. Therefore, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.\u201d Penascino v. Cope, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223747 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 12, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Motion for sixth extension of time to file a motion to suppress is denied. A Franks motion was filed back in August. United States v. Hardison, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224499 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 14, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A ShotSpotter alert of 16 gunshots from the vicinity of defendant\u2019s home confirmed by witnesses in a car leaving the area was justification for exigent entry onto the curtilage. \u201cSince the addition of the omitted information does not disturb the … Continue reading