W.D.Pa.: Affidavit for SW doesn’t have to say CI was reliable when the facts and circumstances alleged showed it

Defendant’s allegations of the police not saying in the warrant affidavit the CI was reliable doesn’t matter because the affidavit for warrant shows otherwise why the CI was credited. There was probable cause. To the extent this would be considered a Franks motion, it fails. United States v. McLaughlin, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65252 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 10, 2024).*

In addition, the Court finds that Mr. McLaughlin was not unlawfully detained by law enforcement outside of his house in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The circumstances present during the time Mr. McLaughlin was outside his house, as set forth above and incorporated herein, lead to the conclusion that Mr. McLaughlin was not illegally detained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Detective Dick’s verbal direction to Mr. McLaughlin to ‘stay over here,’ was given in support of maintaining the integrity of the ongoing search of the house and for the safety of law enforcement. The direction was delivered in a neutral tone, with no show of weapons, and no physical contact with Mr. McLaughlin himself. While he was outside, Mr. McLaughlin was never told he could not leave, and no officer obstructed his ability to walk away. Thus, the Court finds no Fourth Amendment violation occurred outside the house.” Moreover, he was not “in custody” on the totality, and his statement was voluntary. United States v. McLaughlin, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65249 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 10, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Custody, Informant hearsay, Seizure. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.