Defendant\u2019s property had been searched in September 2017. Information from that made it to a search warrant issued in October 2018, and it wasn\u2019t stale because of the ongoing nature of the facts. United States v. Harmon, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131953 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 7, 2019).*<\/p>\n
Defendant challenges the probable cause for the stop and then search of his car based on a CI. The court finds that the dog alert was justified and that\u2019s enough, no matter what. State v. Delapp<\/a>, 2019 Mo. App. LEXIS 1193 (Aug. 7, 2019).*<\/p>\n The city couldn\u2019t be sued because of immunity for a passenger who was seized with the car, and obviously not free to leave, decided to jump in the driver\u2019s seat and took off, crashing into plaintiff. Townsend v. Anderson<\/a>, 2019 IL App (1st) 180771, 2019 Ill. App. LEXIS 636 (Aug. 7, 2019).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant\u2019s property had been searched in September 2017. Information from that made it to a search warrant issued in October 2018, and it wasn\u2019t stale because of the ongoing nature of the facts. United States v. Harmon, 2019 U.S. Dist. … Continue reading