Defendant was the subject of a tribal telephonic search warrant that had some errors. The fact the FBI took the case over did not make the warrant subject to Rule 41. Overall, the search warrant complied with the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Medearis, 775 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (D. S.D. 2011), R&R United States v. Medearis, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139933 (D. S.D. October 20, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Search warrant was clearly supported by probable cause, and a mere scrivener\u2019s error on a date was not fatal to the search. United States v. Villa verde-Leyva, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139775 (N.D. Ga. December 8, 2010).*<\/p>\n
The consenter\u2019s claim that her consent was coerced was not credible in light of her conflicting testimony. United States v. Schmitz, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139785 (M.D. Fla. October 18, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Consent to search one room for a gun permitted a fairly intense search of the room. The gun led to PC for a search warrant. United States v. Myers, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139782 (M.D. Fla. October 12, 2010).*<\/p>\n
The CI was known to the officer, and, while he was a first time informant, his information was \u201cenhanced\u201d by its great detail. United States v. Martin, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139838 (D. Nev. October 5, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading