A three-week-old controlled buy was part of the probable cause. The Fourth Amendment doesn\u2019t impose a \u201cshot clock\u201d on staleness. Nexus was clear: \u201cThe nexus in this case, by contrast, left nothing to the imagination.\u201d Police used pole camera surveillance of a storage unit for several days. That was no trespass. And it was with a warrant, no less. Finally Franks: \u201cEaster cannot meet this standard. He provides no evidence that even suggests, much less shows, that the police had an \u2018intention to mislead.\u2019 That alone undercuts his challenge. Making matters worse, none of the alleged omissions identified by Easter would have changed the probable-cause calculation.\u201d United States v. Easter, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 49 (6th Cir. Jan. 2, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWhen Childress moved toward them, his left arm and hand swung back and forth while his right arm did not, and his right hand was not visible. Prior to the encounter, the officers were informed that Childress was suspected of attempted homicide, and that he may have had access to a firearm. The officers testified that as Childress approached them, they could only see his left hand. And Childress did not respond to the officers’ repeated commands to “drop the gun” and show his hands. Under these circumstances, and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, Bohanon’s and Walford’s belief that Childress possessed a firearm was reasonable as a matter of law.\u201d K.C. v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 10 (9th Cir. Jan. 2, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A three-week-old controlled buy was part of the probable cause. The Fourth Amendment doesn\u2019t impose a \u201cshot clock\u201d on staleness. Nexus was clear: \u201cThe nexus in this case, by contrast, left nothing to the imagination.\u201d Police used pole camera surveillance … Continue reading