{"id":1974,"date":"2008-04-11T20:48:50","date_gmt":"2008-04-10T18:41:06","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-04-10T18:41:06","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1974","title":{"rendered":"Giving affidavit a commonsense reading, there was PC"},"content":{"rendered":"

Probable cause was shown for a search of defendant’s office on Robins Air Force base for evidence of a bribery scheme. Defendant’s reading of the affidavit was hypertechnical and contrary to Ventresca<\/em><\/a>, and the affidavit as a whole showed probable cause. United States v. Deason, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28410 (M.D. Ga. April 8, 2008)*:<\/p>\n

Therefore, where the “circumstances are detailed, where reason for crediting the source of the information is given, and when a magistrate has found probable cause, the courts should not invalidate the warrant by interpreting the affidavit in a hypertechnical, rather than a commonsense, manner.” Id.<\/em> In cases where the affidavit presents only doubtful or marginal probable cause, “the resolution … should be largely determined by the preference to be accorded to warrants.” Id.<\/em> Thus, the magistrate judge’s determination of probable cause is given great deference. See id<\/em>. A court’s determination about whether probable cause supported a warrant involves simply “a practical, commonsense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit … there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” Illinois v. Gates<\/em><\/a>, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1983). <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Summary judgment denied over forced physical examinations of plaintiffs’ children because of a fact dispute over whether they actually or impliedly consented. Plaintiffs contended they were not informed of the alleged voluntary nature of the examinations in a language they could understand. Doe v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28510 (E.D. Cal. April 8, 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1974","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1974","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1974"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1974\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1974"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1974"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1974"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}