Based on two bases of collective knowledge, the officer had justification for a stop and a search, so the justification for the drug dog isn\u2019t even relevant. United States v. Carter, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45275 (N.D. Iowa Mar. 5, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant isn\u2019t charged with the drugs found in the CI\u2019s car, so he doesn\u2019t have standing to challenge it. United States v. Hardison, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44702 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 3, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Franks hearing denied: \u201cDefendant has neither: (1) \u2018accompanied [these allegations with] an offer of proof\u2019 in the form of \u2018affidavits or sworn or otherwise reliable statements of witnesses\u2019 or any other evidence, that makes the requisite preliminary showing that Officer Frampton knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, included a false statement in his Affidavit, or omitted information from his Affidavit, knowingly and intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth; nor (2) otherwise satisfactorily explained the absence of such offers of proof.\u201d United States v. Lindsey, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44555 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 4, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Based on two bases of collective knowledge, the officer had justification for a stop and a search, so the justification for the drug dog isn\u2019t even relevant. United States v. Carter, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45275 (N.D. Iowa Mar. 5, … Continue reading