NJ: Prior knowledge def probably had drugs in car didn’t require SW, and automobile exception still applied

Prior knowledge defendant might have marijuana in his car didn’t require the police to get a search warrant for the car. The automobile exception still applied. [Eight months afterward, NJ legalized marijuana.] State v. Baker, 2024 N.J. Super. LEXIS 24 (Mar. 7, 2024).

The affidavit for search warrant was alleged to have misleading information in it, but defendant proffers nothing to support it. Indeed, at the time of the entry, what the officers found matches what the CI told them. United States v. Woodard, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38744 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 6, 2024).*

The officer did not violate Franks by not mentioning that he was new in this type of case and was self taught. And, “The search warrant affidavit states, ‘The facts in this affidavit come from my personal observations, my training and experiences, and information obtained from other officers and witnesses.’” State v. Woodruff, 2024 Iowa App. LEXIS 206 (Mar. 6, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Automobile exception, Franks doctrine. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.