The government argued no standing. \u201cDespite being on notice that standing was an issue, Defendant did not introduce evidence at the suppression hearing to establish his relationship to the property searched in this case.\u201d Going to the merits anyway, defendant got out of his pickup truck when he was stopped, and there was a baggie of meth protruding from his pocket. It\u2019s evidentiary value was immediately apparent to the officer. United States v. Morales, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60649 (D. Neb. Apr. 10, 2018).<\/p>\n
There was enough connection between defendant and a drug trafficking operation to be probable cause to search defendant\u2019s house. \u201c[T]he Affidavit does not solely rest on the agent’s assertion that evidence of Bennett’s drug dealing activity is based on the agent’s knowledge from training and experience.\u201d Even so, the good faith exception applies, and the search is still valid. United States v. Bennett, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60504 (S.D. Ind. Apr. 10, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The government argued no standing. \u201cDespite being on notice that standing was an issue, Defendant did not introduce evidence at the suppression hearing to establish his relationship to the property searched in this case.\u201d Going to the merits anyway, defendant … Continue reading