After an attempted traffic stop, following defendant to his front door and stopping him after the screen door was opened in between it and the front door was curtilage, even in an apartment building. There was no exigency justifying the officer’s entry into the home for the arrest. United States v. Maxwell, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61388 (E.D. Va. Apr. 6, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s claimed omissions for Franks purposes weren\u2019t really omissions. They were discernable from the affidavit as a whole. A \u201creasonable officer standard\u201d shouldn\u2019t be applied to Franks violations. Here, some information was omitted by honest mistake, not to mislead. Moreover, even if the information had been included, the probable cause finding would not change. United States v. Glass, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61379 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 6, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s Ohio parole search was with reasonable suspicion as required by state law and was reasonable. United States v. Roush, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61202 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 6, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
After an attempted traffic stop, following defendant to his front door and stopping him after the screen door was opened in between it and the front door was curtilage, even in an apartment building. There was no exigency justifying the … Continue reading