DE: People inside isn’t exigency for nighttime SW

The justification for a nighttime search warrant was insufficient as a matter of law. The mere presence of people in the house is not exigency. State v. Harrison, 2022 Del. Super. LEXIS 302 (July 14, 2022).

The USMJ found defendant did not have standing, but he did. He was the driver with permission. Still, the vehicle search was valid under the automobile exception. United States v. Ewing, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124758 (W.D. Tenn. July 14, 2022).*

Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim a cell-site simulator was used in this criminal case is barred by Heck. Jones v. District of Columbia, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 19551 (D.C. Cir. July 14, 2022).

The question is whether the dog sniff added to the stop, and here it did not. It was complete well before the stop was separately completed. State v. Sunkle, 2022-Ohio-2442, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 2303 (5th Dist. July 15, 2022).*

The alleged false statements were not material to the finding of probable cause. Sorrow v. City of Atlanta, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 19604 (11th Cir. July 15, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Automobile exception, Cell site simulators, Dog sniff, Franks doctrine, Nighttime search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.