CA8: Officer corroborated only CI’s objective information, not the crux, but that was enough for PC for automobile exception

There was no corroboration of the incriminating part of the CI’s tale that defendant, a convicted felon, kept a gun hidden under the hood of his car. “But Officer Princivalli had no reason to find Moore’s statements untrustworthy or unreliable. In fact, he verified several of them–the vehicle was rented and Mitchell was violent–before the search. The district court did not err in determining that the search was warranted under the automobile exception.” United States v. Mitchell, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 29447 (8th Cir. Nov. 6, 2023).

A few weeks was not too stale in a child pornography case. Over 1,000 images were recovered. United States v. Long, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 29502 (11th Cir. Nov. 6, 2023).*

Alleged violation of state bail law that apparently resulted in defendant spending a bit more time in jail before bonding out did not support a Fourth Amendment claim under Riverside. Otherwise, it was reasonable. Oaks v. Rowald, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198320 (S.D. Ill. Nov. 3, 2023).*

Plaintiff stated a claim for excessive force at this stage of the case. The law was clearly established, and a jury could find against the officer. Hughes v. Herbster, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198335 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 3, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Automobile exception, Excessive force, Informant hearsay, Seizure. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.