\u201cThe Court agrees with Mr. Newby that the ADU [accessory dwelling unit] was its own residence\u2014not curtilage\u2014and therefore required its own probable cause finding. By authorizing the search of both residences, the warrant was indeed defective. But crucially, law enforcement did not actually search the ADU, and its inclusion in the search warrant was an honest and reasonable mistake. The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule exists for precisely this type of situation.\u201d United States v. Newby, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162720 (D. Idaho July 21, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWilcox is correct that the affidavit does include several generalizations regarding the habits of drug dealers and the use of stash houses. However, none of that information is necessary to find that the affidavit established a nexus between the residence and the likelihood that evidence of drug trafficking would be found there.\u201d United States v. Wilcox, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162111 (N.D. Ohio July 22, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s attempted jaywalking stop led to his flight and subsequent arrest. United States v. Fowler, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162460 (S.D. Ohio July 22, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cThe Court agrees with Mr. Newby that the ADU [accessory dwelling unit] was its own residence\u2014not curtilage\u2014and therefore required its own probable cause finding. By authorizing the search of both residences, the warrant was indeed defective. But crucially, law enforcement … Continue reading