CA9: That CI could be accountable for falsity supports veracity

“Considering the totality of circumstances, the search warrant affidavit established probable cause that evidence or contraband would be found at Conard’s residence. The affidavit supplied sufficient indicia that the first confidential informant (‘CI 1′) was reliable. To begin, CI 1 was known to law enforcement, so CI 1 may be held accountable for providing false information in violation of the law. … Further, CI 1’s tip that on a certain date Conard would be in Kalispell purchasing methamphetamine from a dealer near a K-Mart store was partially corroborated by Conard’s traffic stop that took place that day.” And there was a controlled buy off defendant, too. United States v. Conard, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 36505 (9th Cir. Dec. 10, 2021).*

2255 petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim is barred. It was fully litigated before. Even granting leave to amend is pointless. Gates v. United States, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 237054 (W.D.Wash. Dec. 10, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Informant hearsay, Issue preclusion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.