MI: Two controlled buys where def left house to do it and returned was PC for house

The informant’s information here [to me] was conclusorily stated by the officer to be reliable [not discussed], except there were also two controlled buys from the defendant where he left his place and returned. [The latter is enough.] People v. Gault, 2025 Mich. App. LEXIS 6353 (Aug. 8, 2025).

“The officers had probable cause to arrest Mr. Early. The officers had seen him ‘disappearing in the alleyways quickly’ with individuals the officers ‘presumed’ were ‘customers’ and observed him ‘tak[e] money from an individual in a car that pulled up to him.’ U.S. Ex. 1 at 3. There had also been a 911 call reporting that ‘dealer(s) [were] selling “white stuff”’ at the same location where a ‘red GMC Terrain’ was present. Id. at 2. In sum, probable cause was not based solely on unsupported assumptions by the officers as Mr. Early suggests. There were sufficient indicia of drug transactions to provide probable cause, and the officers were not required to confirm Mr. Early was in fact engaging in drug transactions before arresting him.” United States v. Early, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150931 (D. Minn. Aug. 6, 2025).*

Plaintiff argues that the use of force in his case was with obvious clarity as far as the qualified immunity inquiry goes, but he didn’t raise that below. Herold v. Christensen, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 19806 (10th Cir. Aug. 6, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Informant hearsay, Nexus, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.