The officer\u2019s testimony about exigent circumstances is credited. It was also reasonable for an officer to go upstairs for a sweep after hearing a voice, even though that voice turned out to be from a television set. United States v. Warren, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88523 (W.D.Pa. July 7, 2015).<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s detention at work while a search of his house was going on was not barred by Bailey because officers had probable cause to arrest. United States v. Garden, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88575 (D.Neb. June 29, 2015).<\/p>\n
Defendant argued for a Franks violation over the use of the word a \u201ctorrent\u201d file in a child pornography search warrant to describe more than what it was. The court does not find one. United States v. Palmer, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88596 (M.D.Fla. May 18, 2015).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The officer\u2019s testimony about exigent circumstances is credited. It was also reasonable for an officer to go upstairs for a sweep after hearing a voice, even though that voice turned out to be from a television set. United States v. … Continue reading