The police do not have to completely investigate and find all they can before seeking a search warrant. The question is always whether they showed PC on the totality of circumstances on what they presented. United States v. Shields, 458 F.3d 269 (3d Cir. August 16, 2006):<\/p>\n
Whether the FBI could have provided more information is not the benchmark, and other courts of appeals have rejected similar arguments. Gourde,<\/em> 440 F.3d at 1073 n.5 (“[T]he benchmark is not what the FBI ‘could have’ done. HN8An affidavit may support probable cause even if the government fails to obtain potentially dispositive information.”); United States v. Ozar, 50 F.3d 1440, 1446 (8th Cir. 1995) (holding that trial court “erred in focusing [its] Franks v. Delaware<\/em> analysis on what the FBI could have learned with more investigation.”). For purposes of our analysis, it is of no import that the FBI could have discovered more corroborating evidence, such as actual downloads, so long as the valid information it supplies satisfies the “fair probability” standard articulated in Gates. <\/em>462 U.S. at 238-39, 103 S. Ct. at 2332.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Defendant during traffic stop was giving inconsistent answers to questions, and he was asked for consent and he agreed. He was also told he could ask questions at any time during the search. United States v. Macedo, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56501 (D. Neb. August 11, 2006).*<\/p>\n
Officer had RS for investigative detention of the defendant from nervousness, being on a drug route, did not know the name of the owner of the vehicle he was driving, too much luggage for the trip, didn’t know where he was staying when he got to Kansas City, and had to make a call when he got there to know where to go. United States v. Olivares-Campos, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56621 (D. Kan. July 31, 2006).*<\/p>\n
Where the allegations in a motion to suppress attack the search warrant as lacking probable cause, no hearing is required to consider the issue. United States v. Evans, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56564 (D. Nev. July 10, 2006) (“Because the issues raised in the motion concern only the contents of the affidavit and search warrant, no factual issues need be resolved. Accordingly, an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary.”).<\/p>\n
Citizen informant who was eyewitness and gave a 33 minute taped interview was credible. The fact that he could be prosecuted for providing false information in a police investigation supports his credibility. Id.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evGMco.b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading