The Idaho Dep’t of Fish & Game division\u2019s wildlife checkpoint here was reasonable under all the circumstances. Plaintiff wasn\u2019t a hunter and his stop would have resulted in one question and he\u2019d have been on his way. Tanner v. Schriever, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165212 (D. Idaho Sept. 9, 2020).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWith respect to the use of Allen’s statement in the affidavit, De Aza provided no evidence showing that Officer Webster recounting Allen’s statement that \u2018an ounce\u2019 of methamphetamine was present in De Aza’s home was intentionally or recklessly false. See Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-56. While De Aza attempts to cast doubt on Allen’s reliability, it is Officer Webster’s veracity that is relevant. See Novaton, 271 F.3d at 986. And Officer Webster did not recklessly rely on Allen’s statement. The methamphetamine found in the car corroborated Allen’s assertion that De Aza had methamphetamine in his home, and Allen’s reliability was bolstered by the fact that he also provided inculpatory statements. [\u00b6] Even assuming Officer Webster acted wrongly, probable cause existed independent of the challenged statement.\u201d United States v. De Aza<\/a>, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 28708 (11th Cir. Sept. 10, 2020).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Idaho Dep’t of Fish & Game division\u2019s wildlife checkpoint here was reasonable under all the circumstances. Plaintiff wasn\u2019t a hunter and his stop would have resulted in one question and he\u2019d have been on his way. Tanner v. Schriever, … Continue reading