CA8: Shot fired call from house resulted in protective sweep when door was answered by man matching description

Officers responding to a call about a shot fired from a window found a man answering the door matching the 911 description. A protective sweep was thus permissible. Defendant also consented to the entry. United States v. Williams, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 21358 (8th Cir. Aug. 16, 2023).

The motion to suppress was previously denied on the good faith exception, although there was no probable cause for the warrant. Defendant filed a motion to reopen that the police cold case investigation was really a sham for the warrant. It was a mere lack of evidence, not an intent to deceive under Franks. United States v. Karun, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142975 (D. Me. Aug. 16, 2023).*

Defendant’s laptop was subjected to a private search by a person with apparent authority under the Texas exclusionary rule statute. Therefore, it was admissible. Runyon v. State, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 6245 (Tex. App. – Beaumont Aug 16, 2023).*

The indictment was dismissed, and defendant moves for return of his cell phone. The government resists but must show cause why it should not be granted. United States v. Jones, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144646 (D.Kan. Aug. 17, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Apparent authority, Good faith exception, Rule 41(g) / Return of property. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.