\u201cThe Court does not find this argument persuasive. Cooperation with law enforcement suggests reliability of Mr. Brown’s statements. See, e.g., United States v. Pinson, 321 F.3d 558 (6th Cir. 2003) (upholding search warrant predicated on information from a confidential informant who had provided past information to law enforcement). Furthermore, as the Government notes, Mr. Brown’s reputation as a drug addict does not discredit his statements concerning his purchase of narcotics. \u2018More doubtful would be a claim of purchasing pills by a witness who never abused drugs.\u2019 … Ultimately, the Court believes the weight of the evidence supports pretrial detention of Mr. Jones.\u201d United States v. Jones, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83282 (E.D. Ky. May 17, 2018).<\/p>\n
The 911 call here was not anonymous. It was detailed and the caller left his name and number. At the scene, important details were corroborated. That was reasonable suspicion. United States v. Caraang, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81814 (W.D. Wash. May 15, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cThe Court does not find this argument persuasive. Cooperation with law enforcement suggests reliability of Mr. Brown’s statements. See, e.g., United States v. Pinson, 321 F.3d 558 (6th Cir. 2003) (upholding search warrant predicated on information from a confidential informant … Continue reading