Daily Archives: November 13, 2018

D.N.M.: Failure to mention the CI’s criminal history is less important when the affidavit shows extensive corroboration

Failure to mention the CI’s criminal history is less important when the affidavit shows extensive corroboration. The Franks challenge fails. United States v. Martinez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192181 (D. N.M. Nov. 9, 2018). Defendant had standing to challenge the … Continue reading

Posted in Informant hearsay, Standing | Comments Off on D.N.M.: Failure to mention the CI’s criminal history is less important when the affidavit shows extensive corroboration

S.D.N.Y.: Emails from CIs provided PC, and the SW was limited to categories of information

A CI gave emails to government investigators about health care fraud. They and other information provided probable cause for more emails. The warrants were particularized by being limited to eight categories. United States v. Mathieu, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192281 … Continue reading

Posted in E-mail, Informant hearsay, Particularity, Probable cause | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: Emails from CIs provided PC, and the SW was limited to categories of information

E.D.Mich.: Illegally obtained evidence cannot be used to establish probable cause

Illegally obtained evidence cannot be used to establish probable cause. United States v. Gordon, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190782 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 12, 2018):

Posted in Probable cause | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: Illegally obtained evidence cannot be used to establish probable cause

W.D.La.: Officers’ subjective belief in def’s standing at time of search isn’t material to the court’s determination on objective facts

At the time of the search, officers believed defendant had standing in the place searched, but that’s not relevant to the court’s determination. “Federal agents were aware of Defendant and believed that he lived in the residence in question. But … Continue reading

Posted in Probable cause, Standards of review | Comments Off on W.D.La.: Officers’ subjective belief in def’s standing at time of search isn’t material to the court’s determination on objective facts