The CI was corroborated by controlled buys and surveillance cameras showing drug deals outside defendant\u2019s home. The house was sufficiently described that the wrong house wouldn\u2019t be searched. \u201cMs. Pereda nonetheless argues the search warrant lacked particularity because it did not specify the layout of her home’s interior or mention specific locations within the home where illegal substances could be found. The Court finds this argument to be wholly without merit.\u201d United States v. Pereda, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142683 (D. Colo. Aug. 22, 2018). [How can the interior be described? Unless the CI provided it, and that\u2019s corroboration the CI was only inside.]<\/p>\n
Defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress. There clearly was probable cause for the search warrant. Crisp v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142141 (C.D. Ill. Aug. 22, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The CI was corroborated by controlled buys and surveillance cameras showing drug deals outside defendant\u2019s home. The house was sufficiently described that the wrong house wouldn\u2019t be searched. \u201cMs. Pereda nonetheless argues the search warrant lacked particularity because it did … Continue reading