NY1: SW misdescription of place to be searched not adequately resolved below; remanded

Defendant’s motion to suppress based on an apparent misdescription of the place to be searched wasn’t resolved below, so the case is remanded for further development. People v. Trulove, 2025 NY Slip Op 01178, 2025 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1170 (1st Dept. Feb. 27, 2025). (The trial was May 18, 2017, nearly 8 years ago. “Justice delayed is justice denied,”* or something like that.)

Defendant already lost his Franks challenge, but the court gives him a chance to attack other alleged factual misrepresentations, but none of them are material. United States v. Banks, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35117 (D. Me. Feb. 27, 2025).*

There was reasonable suspicion on the totality about text messages for a meet up for a drug drop even though the vehicle didn’t match because the officer testified that sometimes they don’t describe the vehicle accurately on purpose. “Similarly to Baggett, supra, the totality of the circumstances in this case and the rational inferences that can be drawn therefrom show that Pledger had reasonable, articulable suspicion that the driver of the white truck was the person who was hoping to find her in the park.” Towe v. State, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 77 (Feb. 25, 2025).*

______
* 1837, per Wikipedia entry, n.5. At least Mr. Trulove got probation.

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Particularity, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.