CA6: CI’s lie to get into def’s house to video him making a drug deal with the CI didn’t violate 4A

The informant’s lie to get into defendant’s house to video him making a drug deal with the CI didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment. See Lewis v. United States, 385 U.S. 206, 210 (1966). United States v. Warick, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 15538 (6th Cir. May 28, 2026).

“The Dash Cam and Body Cam video reflect that Officer App requested a K9 officer and back-up units after observing the two cell phones and the cash scattered on the front passenger seat of Mr. Jordan’s vehicle under a bag. When requesting backup, Officer App also mentioned to the dispatcher Mr. Jordan’s prior convictions for being a serious violent felon, possession of narcotics and machine guns, and dealing drugs, which he had learned of when he performed a search on Indiana MyCase. When another officer arrived on the scene, Officer App told him ‘he’s got quite a bit of currency in the front passenger seat and he has two phones. That’s enough for me to get a dog.’ [Body Cam at 07:10-07:20.]” United States v. Jordan, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117671 (S.D. Ind. May 28, 2026).*

Reasonable suspicion developed after the stop, and that justified extending it. United States v. Mitchell, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117454 (E.D. Pa. May 27, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.