DEA’s use of state officers to make a valid traffic stop as a part of their investigation did not violate the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Williams, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24665 (E.D. Ark. March 18, 2008).*<\/p>\n
Continual information from CI about defendant’s activities and police corroboration of that information gave reasonable suspicion. United States v. Horn, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24596 (E.D. Ky. March 27, 2008).*<\/p>\n
A blanket assertion that an affidavit is false for Franks<\/em> purposes is insufficient–the specific parts that are false needs to be addressed. United States v. Lombardo, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24704 (D. Utah March 27, 2008):<\/p>\n Defendant Baron Lombardo claims generally that “[t]he affidavit of Agent Hill is false in its entirety and misrepresents the facts as they occurred on the day in question.” However, this general assertion does not satisfy Defendant Lombardo’s burden to make a substantial preliminary Franks showing. As stated by the Franks<\/em> Court, the defendant must “point out specifically the portion of the warrant affidavit that is claimed to be false” and offer a “statement of supporting reasons.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading