A typo in defendant\u2019s home address was not prejudicial where there was a picture of the house included in the warrant. Thus, no ineffective assistance of counsel for not challenging it. Kassay v. United States, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116669 (N.D. Ind. June 30, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A citizen informant\u2019s story gave reasonable suspicion for defendant\u2019s stop and calling for a drug dog. State v. Huntley<\/a>, 2022 Ida. LEXIS 75 (June 29, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201c[T]his case asks three questions: (1) Did Trooper Duteil have probable cause to pull Pollard over; (2) Did the police have reasonable suspicion to deploy Roy [the dog]; and (3) Was Roy’s alert reliable enough to establish probable cause? The answer to all three inquiries is \u2018yes.\u2019 Trooper Duteil observed Pollard commit two traffic infractions; the informant’s tip coupled with Pollard’s behavior triggered reasonable suspicion to have Roy sniff the Cadillac; and\u2014Pollard’s expert’s testimony notwithstanding\u2014Roy was certified, trained, and reliable.\u201d United States v. Pollard, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116492 (S.D. Ohio June 30, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201c[T]he Court finds there was reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop because officers had reliable information that the Jeep was involved in a shots-fired incident.\u201d United States v. Spellman, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116821 (D. Neb. May 16, 2022),* adopted 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115904 (D. Neb. June 29, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A typo in defendant\u2019s home address was not prejudicial where there was a picture of the house included in the warrant. Thus, no ineffective assistance of counsel for not challenging it. Kassay v. United States, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116669 … Continue reading