The R&R determined that there was no \u201csearch\u201d for Fourth Amendment purposes, and if there was, it was reasonable. On review by the USDJ, the failure to challenge the \u201cno search\u201d holding isn\u2019t a proper objection. United States v. Oury, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18135 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 4, 2020).<\/p>\n
\u201cIn this case, we have facts establishing a poorly drafted affidavit, not a search warrant procured in bad faith. As established at the evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress, although the affiant officer submitted the affidavit knowing that he had personally observed the controlled purchases of cocaine, he failed to clearly articulate that point in the affidavit. The officer plainly would not have viewed his affidavit as so lacking in indicia of probable cause that his belief in the existence of probable cause was rendered unreasonable. The officer had personal knowledge regarding the controlled buys, and he personally knew that the unnamed purchaser was credible and that the information was reliable because the officer surveilled the transactions.\u201d People v. Powell<\/a>, 2020 Mich. App. LEXIS 862 (Feb. 4, 2020).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The R&R determined that there was no \u201csearch\u201d for Fourth Amendment purposes, and if there was, it was reasonable. On review by the USDJ, the failure to challenge the \u201cno search\u201d holding isn\u2019t a proper objection. United States v. Oury, … Continue reading