E.D.Ky.: Only “some temporal reference” is required to avoid staleness

The affidavit for search warrant shows sufficient references to recent time to show it was not stale. “Put plainly, the Sixth Circuit does not require a search warrant affidavit to include the temporal specificity which Hardaway suggests is necessary. Rather, an affiant need only include ‘some temporal reference,’ to when a controlled buy occurred for it to be properly considered in the probable cause determination. United States v. Hython, 443 F.3d 480, 486 (6th Cir. 2006).” United States v. Hardaway, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108568 (E.D. Ky. June 9, 2025).

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a vehicle’s VIN number such that it can’t be used to verify insurance. Bradley v. Ill. Sec’y of State, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108842 (N.D. Ill. June 9, 2025).

Uncertainty about what the trial court held in not believing the officers in granting a motion to suppress results in remand for further findings. State v. Mickel, 2025 Ga. LEXIS 125 (June 10, 2025).*

Presented as an effort to suppress, defendant can’t get discovery of how Snap operates in an effort to show that it is not a private actor in providing a CSAM tip to law enforcement. United States v. Ambrose, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108772 (M.D. Fla. June 9, 2025).

This entry was posted in Motion to suppress, Private search, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Staleness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.