D.Minn.: CI corroboration of info for SW after the fact at least showed GFE

The CI provided detailed information about defendant’s methamphetamine dealing, and that defendant said he’d die before going back to prison. After the tracking warrant was signed, the officers further corroborated the CI’s story after the warrant issued. The good faith exception would apply and save this no matter what. United States v. Libby, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31974 (D.Minn. Feb. 11, 2016), adopted 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31951 (D. Minn. Mar. 11, 2016).

Defendant consented to his blood draw, and he didn’t have a statutory right to advice of a right to refuse consent. Hinson v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 166, 2016 Ark. App. LEXIS 167 (March 9, 2016).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Drug or alcohol testing, Informant hearsay. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.