There was good reason to credit the CI here: he was actually questioned by the issuing judge and the information clearly added up to probable cause. The court credits the officers that the search did not start until one hour after the warrant issued rather than the defendant\u2019s version that it started 40 minutes before. There was evidence to support that v. defendant\u2019s unsworn assertion in the papers. United States v. Figueroa, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57625 (W.D. N.Y. February 3, 2015).<\/p>\n
Pretrial defense counsel\u2019s comments about possession of a firearm in an effort to establish standing to challenge the search that found the gun was not prejudicial to the trial where that never came before the jury. The search issue wasn\u2019t appealed [and wasn\u2019t presented as an IAC claim] so it couldn\u2019t be argued in a post-conviction case as a substitute for appeal. Magness v. State<\/a>, 2015 Ark. 185, 2015 Ark. LEXIS 303 (April 30, 2015).*<\/p>\n \u201cTherefore, because of the great deference afforded to issuing judges, and due to the informant’s statements being sufficiently corroborated by Sergeant Matthews, the affidavit and complaint for a search warrant were based on probable cause and properly executed under the Fourth Amendment.\u201d And, it \u201cwas far from \u2018bare bones,\u2019 and included sufficient detail and reasonable corroboration\u201d of the CI such that good faith would apply, too. United States v. Dubrowski, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183687 (W.D. W.Va. April 24, 2014).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" There was good reason to credit the CI here: he was actually questioned by the issuing judge and the information clearly added up to probable cause. The court credits the officers that the search did not start until one hour … Continue reading