Defendant is entitled to return of property originally seized 7\u00bd years ago to prosecute him that is not contraband and no longer needed. United States v. Green, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85174 (E.D.Pa. June 30, 2015).<\/p>\n
A state law enforcement officer stopped defendant, and reasonable suspicion developed from body language, where she was going, and how she looked and acted [i.e., high]. Therefore, the delay in getting the drug dog there was not unreasonable. United States v. Harrell, 2015 CCA LEXIS 279 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. July 1, 2015).*
\nhttp:\/\/afcca.law.af.mil\/content\/afcca_opinions\/cp\/harrell-38538.u.pdf<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s Franks claim fails. He claimed information was omitted from the search warrant affidavit, but it has no effect on the probable cause finding. United States v. Brooks, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86316 (S.D.Ind. July 2, 2015).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant is entitled to return of property originally seized 7\u00bd years ago to prosecute him that is not contraband and no longer needed. United States v. Green, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85174 (E.D.Pa. June 30, 2015). A state law enforcement … Continue reading