Two search warrants were issued May 28 & 29, 2019. They were both issued with probable cause, they weren\u2019t stale, and the second did not supersede the first. No case supports this latter argument. United States v. Atkins, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47459 (M.D. N.C. Mar. 16, 2020).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant agreed to a parole search condition without cause. Officers had a tip. Coupled with his prior possession of a cutting agent for Fentanyl, curfew violations, and admission he had too much money to work was justification for the probation search. United States v. Dennis, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48035 (D. Conn. Mar. 20, 2020).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Reviewing the suppression hearing transcript, the court finds an objective observer would understand that the request for identification was not an order. [They never are.] State v. Cross<\/a>, 2020-Ohio-1039, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 969 (2d Dist. Mar. 20, 2020).* Two search warrants were issued May 28 & 29, 2019. They were both issued with probable cause, they weren\u2019t stale, and the second did not supersede the first. No case supports this latter argument. United States v. Atkins, 2020 U.S. … Continue reading
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"