There was no nexus shown at a house defendant merely visited between his house and a drug deal he left to complete 20 blocks away, stopping at the subject house in between. \u201cIt stretches credulity to conclude that Gilliam’s single stop at a residence previously entirely unconnected to Gilliam and any alleged illicit activity or other evidence of a crime would be sufficient to establish probable cause to believe that law enforcement may find contraband or other evidence of a crime therein.\u201d United States v. Patterson, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166252 (D. Minn. September 26, 2014).<\/p>\n
The entry of defendant\u2019s apartment was shown to be by consent. Immigration officers arrived to serve a removal warrant, and defendant let them in. Drugs were found, but the immigration officers had to call other officers to deal with that because it wasn\u2019t their job. United States v. Garcia, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166063 (N.D. Ill. December 1, 2014).*<\/p>\n
A motion to reconsider a motion to suppress is to have the court reconsider mistakes of law or fact or newly discovered evidence. This motion doesn\u2019t do that and it asks the court to take judicial notice of nonjudicially noticeable facts, like a witness lied. It was also untimely. United States v. Waller, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165993 (W.D. Pa. November 27, 2014).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
There was no nexus shown at a house defendant merely visited between his house and a drug deal he left to complete 20 blocks away, stopping at the subject house in between. \u201cIt stretches credulity to conclude that Gilliam’s single … Continue reading