Defendant was stopped, and the officer gave a warning. He continued asking questions which led to a consent search finding cash. The officer then arrested defendants for possession of the proceeds of a drug transaction. Only there were no probable cause for such an offense under Kansas law, which was clearly established at the time. The motion to suppress is granted, and the exclusionary rule should be applied. United States v. Kurtis, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137654 (D. Kan. Aug. 15, 2018).<\/p>\n
The CI\u2019s information was corroborated by the police and it led to a prior search before defendant\u2019s arrest. There was probable cause for defendant\u2019s arrest based on it. State v. Journet<\/a>, 2018 ME 114, 2018 Me. LEXIS 117 (Aug. 14, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant was stopped, and the officer gave a warning. He continued asking questions which led to a consent search finding cash. The officer then arrested defendants for possession of the proceeds of a drug transaction. Only there were no probable … Continue reading