NJ: CI’s identity not material to a civil case over arson

This is a subrogation claim over a fire caused by arson. Padilla was convicted. The civil case resulted in getting discovery of the DA’s file. After that, the name of a CI for a search warrant was sought, and it was ordered released. That order was appealed. The CI’s name isn’t even important to the case, and the balancing of interests protects the informant’s identity. Reversed. Am. Zurich Ins. Co. v. Meridia Downtown Urban Renewal Bound Brook, 2022 N.J. Super. LEXIS 141 (App. Div. Dec. 7, 2022).

A shooting call in a domestic disturbance led to a valid exigent entry into the home to look for potential victims and all persons had not been accounted for. Blood was seen in plain view. State v. Hernandez, 2022 Mo. App. LEXIS 772 (Dec. 6, 2022).*

There was confusion here whether a prior probation sentence with no reasonable suspicion condition or a current one with a reasonable suspicion applied. This required reasonable suspicion and the officers had it. The government also relied on consent, but they failed to prove it. Expecting consent from the past and actually getting it are different things. United States v. Palmore, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220160 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 6, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Emergency / exigency, Informant hearsay, Probation / Parole search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.