\u201cHere, the affidavit provides that the confidential informant had been providing information to the task force for 11 months, he had no criminal convictions, and his information has never been found to be false or misleading. (Aff. \u00b6 13.) This, alone, is sufficient to support the magistrate’s reliance on the information supplied by the confidential informant.\u201d Here it was also \u201ccorroborated by surveillance, wiretaps, and GPS tracking data.\u201d The fact the defendant went home after the drug transaction showed nexus to it. United States v. Fitzgerald, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164288 (N.D.Ohio Nov. 29, 2016).<\/p>\n
Summary judgment against plaintiff\u2019s \u00a7 1983 case was proper because there was probable cause for the search. Summary judgment against the excessive force claim, however, was reversed because a jury could conclude it was. Mackovska v. City of Garden Grove<\/a>, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21243 (9th Cir. Nov. 28, 2016).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u201cHere, the affidavit provides that the confidential informant had been providing information to the task force for 11 months, he had no criminal convictions, and his information has never been found to be false or misleading. (Aff. \u00b6 13.) This, … Continue reading