Defendant\u2019s 2255 claim that his name and address weren\u2019t in the search warrant doesn\u2019t state any ground for relief because neither is constitutionally required. Lopez v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105807 (C.D. Ill. June 25, 2019).<\/p>\n
The affidavit for this search warrant completely failed to connect the property to the alleged crime under investigation. \u201cIn sum, we find the allegations in the complaint for the search warrant were too general and \u2018bare bones\u2019 to establish a connection between the described residence and evidence of criminal activity. Moreover, the only evidence of criminal activity was provided by a source whose reliability was questionable and unverified, and therefore, this evidence did not establish the necessary nexus between the residence and criminal activity.\u201d Consequently, not even the good faith exception saves it. People v. Pruitte<\/a>, 2019 Ill. App. LEXIS 458 (June 24, 2019).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant\u2019s 2255 claim that his name and address weren\u2019t in the search warrant doesn\u2019t state any ground for relief because neither is constitutionally required. Lopez v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105807 (C.D. Ill. June 25, 2019). The affidavit … Continue reading