The affidavit for search warrant was based on informant hearsay without a reference to the informant’s reliability, but it was sufficient and met the standards for internal corroboration of the hearsay previously articulated by that court. United States v. Pulk, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5639 (D. Me. January 24, 2007):<\/p>\n
Even if that were not the case, the defendants’ attack on paragraphs 3-8 of the affidavit would not succeed. They contend that these paragraphs do not present sufficient information to allow the court to determine whether the statements of informants reported in those paragraphs are reliable and that “most of the information is stale” because it was received nine or more months before the application was made. Joint Motion at [8]-[9]. “When an affidavit relies upon the credibility of informants to demonstrate probable cause for the issuance of a warrant the informants’ credibility can be established in multiple ways.” United States v. Fournier,<\/em> 2002 WL 31414112 (D. Me. Oct. 23, 2002), at *1. Any and all of the following factors may be considered:<\/p>\n
1. Consistency among independent reports.
\n2. Declarations against penal interest.
\n3. Consistency with information provided by “ordinary citizens” (such as complaints by neighbors that an individual was cultivating marijuana)–a type of report that enjoys special stature since information provided by ordinary citizens has particular value in the probable cause equation.
\n4. Corroboration by external data.
\n5. Self-authentication through specificity and detail.<\/p>\nId.<\/em> at *1-*2 (citation and internal punctuation omitted). When these factors are considered, “an informant’s tip can establish probable cause even though the affidavit does not contain information about the informant’s past reliability.” United States v. Greenburg,<\/em> 410 F.3d 63, 67 (1st Cir. 2005).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Defendant’s pro se claim in response to his lawyer’s Anders<\/em> brief that his wife could not have consented because she was under the influence of drugs had no support in the record. As to the claim the informant was not believable for issuance of a search warrant, there was corroboration by the police officer of what details were subject to corroboration. United States v. Howard, 216 Fed. Appx. 463 (6th Cir. 2007)* (unpublished).<\/p>\n
Civil case over search at school based on student’s smell of marijuana was reasonable under the circumstances. KW v. Metropolitan Sch. Corp., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5625 (S.D. Ind. January 24, 2007).*<\/p>\n
Civil case over alleged false arrest and excessive force brought a motion for summary judgment from the defendant which the plaintiff did not respond to. The court found a factual basis for the reasonableness of the arrest and use of force and dismissed the case. Young v. Cavanaugh, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5627 (S.D. Ind. January 24, 2007).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading