Defendant\u2019s consent to entry after repeated efforts to get consent during a knock-and-talk at a hotel room was still valid. They had probable cause, and the threat to get a search warrant was not spurious. United States v. Taylor, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148244 (S.D. Ill. October 16, 2012).*<\/p>\n
Courts should be reluctant to reopen a suppression hearing after a ruling. Here, it was well after the new information was found. Crediting the new information, the court doesn\u2019t find that it will change the result, so the motion is denied. United States v. Norris, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148409 (W.D. Ky. October 16, 2012).*<\/p>\n
The CI was known and reliable, and then his information was well corroborated. United States v. Hands, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149423 (E.D. N.C. October 15, 2012).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading