Defendant was confronted banging on the door of an apartment and fled. When he was captured, he was handcuffed. That was reasonable under the circumstances. United States v. Kinsey, 952 F. Supp. 2d 970 (E.D. Wash. 2013).*<\/p>\n
The showing of probable cause for defendant\u2019s car was thin, but, on review by the district court, it\u2019s not de novo review, and the warrant should be upheld if there was some basis for it. United States v. McAleese, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96563 (E.D. Pa. July 10, 2013)*:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Having expressed these concerns, we are nonetheless reluctant to find that these gaps provide sufficient justification for overturning the issuing judge’s finding of probable cause. We do not make the probable cause determination de novo, but must be deferential to the issuing judge’s conclusion that there was a fair probability that evidence of Brown’s death would be found in McAleese’s vehicle. We may only overturn this finding if it was without a “substantial basis.” United States v. Whitner, 219 F.3d 289, 296 (3d Cir. 2000) (quoting Gates, 462 U.S. at 238).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading