W.D.Pa.: “No application for a search warrant or affidavit in support thereof will be perfect.”

Defendant’s Franks motion and motion to suppress are denied. “No application for a search warrant or affidavit in support thereof will be perfect. The documents at issue in this case are not unassailable. However, there was probable cause to believe that Apartment 7E contained heroin and other instruments of the drug trade. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Suppress (Doc. No. 40) and Motion for Franks Hearing (Doc. No. 42) are DENIED.” United States v. Yarbough, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135205 (W.D. Pa. September 23, 2013).*

Defendant was arrested for DV at a hotel, and his wife validly consented to a search of the room. United States v. Laflamme, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135760 (W.D. Mo. July 9, 2013), adopted 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135288 (W.D. Mo. September 23, 2013).*

None of defendant’s seven attorneys were ineffective in the course of the proceedings, including defendant’s plea that waived his search claim. Venkataram v. United States, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135155 (S.D. N.Y. September 20, 2013).*

The district court’s finding that consent was not coerced was supported by the evidence and affirmed. United States v. Isom, 536 Fed. Appx. 611 (6th Cir. 2013).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.