Defendant\u2019s regular borrowing of a vehicle gave him standing in the vehicle when he was driving it. \u201cIn sum, the affidavit in support of the December 8, 2017 search warrant fails to provide the requisite \u2018\u201cnexus between the place to be searched and the evidence sought.\u2019\u201d Therefore, even viewing the affidavit with great deference, the affidavit fails to establish probable cause to search Everett’s home and vehicle.\u201d The affidavit is bare bones: \u201cBecause this \u2018bare bones\u2019 affidavit failed to state any connection between the illegal activity and the places to be searched, the good-faith rule does not apply. Therefore, all evidence seized pursuant to the December 8, 2017 warrant must be excluded.\u201d United States v. Bradford, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6595 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 13, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cOfficer Kehoe had probable cause to stop and arrest Fogleman and, given the circumstances, the search of the vehicle was lawful.\u201d Fogleman v. State<\/a>, 2021 Miss. App. LEXIS 17 (Jan. 12, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant\u2019s regular borrowing of a vehicle gave him standing in the vehicle when he was driving it. \u201cIn sum, the affidavit in support of the December 8, 2017 search warrant fails to provide the requisite \u2018\u201cnexus between the place to … Continue reading