\u201cHere, the officers’ search of the container attached to Mr. Nichols’s keys was within the time, control, and place constraints for the search of an arrestee’s personal property incident to arrest. Mr. Nichols had the keychain in his exclusive control when he got outside the truck he had been driving. He then was handcuffed and the keys dropped to the ground. Within two minutes of Officer Long handcuffing Mr. Nichols, Sergeant Green picked up the keychain with the container and searched the container. … Sergeant Green searched the container, Mr. Nichols was less than 10 feet away. Using the principles established by Chadwick and amplified by Herrera, the court concludes that the container on Mr. Nichols’s keychain was \u2018immediately associated\u2019 with him. And so, the search of the container was a valid search incident to arrest. For this reason, the court overrules the motion to suppress the evidence found during the search of the container.\u201d United States v. Nichols, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9306 (D. Kan. Jan. 22, 2018).<\/p>\n
The officer in a drug investigation misidentified A as B in a grainy convenience store video based on comparing it to a DL photograph. At worst it was negligence and not even reckless disregard for the truth. \u201cEven if we found that Agent Lewis’s misidentification was made in reckless disregard for the truth, Defendant would nevertheless fail to establish entitlement to a Franks hearing because the misidentification of Bacot was not material to a finding of probable cause.\u201d United States v. Jackson, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9473 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 22, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cHere, the officers’ search of the container attached to Mr. Nichols’s keys was within the time, control, and place constraints for the search of an arrestee’s personal property incident to arrest. Mr. Nichols had the keychain in his exclusive control … Continue reading