N.D.Cal.: SW affidavit need only “tend to show” a violation of law for a SW to issue

Defendant posted anonymously about killing libtards and their children (“parasites”) and “black robed despots” (judges), and he was a San Jose police officer. Officers knew he had nine guns. Officers got a search warrant for his computer to link him better to the poses, and they found instead child pornography. State law requires only that a search warrant affidavit “tend to show” that a violation of the law could be found, and this satisfied that standard. Moreover, the good faith exception applied. United States v. Shevchenko, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150076 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2024).* [The Fourth Amendment rule is the same.]

“Practically speaking, if the factfinder were to believe Wehunt, then Dubielak used excessive force, and Wehunt’s Fourth Amendment right was clearly established; if the factfinder were to believe Dubielak, then he used appropriate force in order to effectuate the arrest, there was no constitutional violation, and Wehunt’s right would not be clearly established on the facts of this case. But the question whom to believe is a question of fact that the court cannot resolve on summary judgment.” Wehunt v. Dubielak, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150687 (N.D. Ala. July 25, 2024).*

In the civil rights prosecution in the police shooting death of Breona Taylor, “Thus, to state a case for the death-results penalty enhancement, the Government must allege facts which, if true, would permit the conclusion that Taylor’s death was the natural and probable consequence of the lack of probable cause to enter her apartment. It has not done so.” United States v. Meany, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150867 (W.D. Ky. Aug. 22, 2024).*