S.D.N.Y.: Constant surveillance of a car not needed for PC

There was probable cause for search of an Uber for drugs based on police surveillance. Defendant’s mention of supposed gaps in surveillance don’t mitigate the probable cause. “Their lack of an airtight case against the defendant, at the time of the search, does not bar a finding of probable cause.” United States v. Gagot, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73881 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2026).*

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not challenging a search warrant that clearly would have failed on the merits. Vice v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72196 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 2, 2026).*

The government sought a DNA warrant to compare defendant to firearms, and there was probable cause connecting him to the firearm police were looking for. The firearm warrant never mentioned his DNA so there’s an independent source. United States v. Watson, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 9597 (7th Cir. Apr. 2, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Automobile exception, DNA, Independent source, Ineffective assistance. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.