A state drug task force officer who was deputized as a federal officer as well was not governed by Rule 41 when he was seeking a state search warrant from a state judge, even though the case ended up going federal. United States v. Cope, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 21618 (6th Cir. August 22, 2006)* (unpublished).<\/p>\n
Nexus to defendant’s premises for search warrant was based on defendant leaving his house to go to scene of drug deal. United States v. Spaulding, 446 F. Supp. 2d 789 (N.D. Ohio August 23, 2006).*<\/p>\n
The mere fact a motorist is in a police car is not proof that he was seized or not about to be released after the traffic stop is resolved. Reasonable suspicion was developed here, and it was then reasonable to bring in the drug dog. United States v. Maldonado-Gutierrez, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59613 (N.D. Iowa August 22, 2006).*<\/p>\n
Ten month old information was not too stale for a child porn on a computer case. While the court will not conclude that it is kept indefinitely, child porn is usually kept a long time. United States v. Chase, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59725 (D. Nev. July 19, 2006).*<\/p>\n
Trial court erred in granting motion to suppress. The defendant consented to the officer opening the door, and the officer could smell marijuana, and that created PC to search for the source. State v. Black, 2006 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 171 (August 25, 2006).*<\/p>\n
No IAC for not challenging search warrant for alleged Franks<\/em> violation because it would fail. People v. Oliver, 39 Cal. 4th 970 (August 24, 2006).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evGMco.b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading