\u201cAs soon as [the officer] accessed [the database from the police car], he saw an alert suggesting that Defendant was armed. Defendant argues that Davis could not be sure of the accuracy of this information, but that hardly matters. Reasonable suspicion can rest on mistakes of both fact and law. Heien, 574 U.S. at 60-61. The issue, then, is not whether the alert was accurate, but whether it was reasonable for Davis to rely on it.\u201d United States v. Woods, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190405 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 18, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Merely stating that a cell phone was seized two months after the crime doesn\u2019t present a staleness argument. And, even if it did, information can be retrieved from cell phones long after. United States v. Peterson, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190827 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 19, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When the probable cause is based on controlled buys, the CI\u2019s criminal history is seemingly of less importance. United States v. Brown, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191045 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 19, 2022) (citing United States v. Woodfork, 999 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 2021)).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cAs soon as [the officer] accessed [the database from the police car], he saw an alert suggesting that Defendant was armed. Defendant argues that Davis could not be sure of the accuracy of this information, but that hardly matters. Reasonable … Continue reading