\u201cAgent Merle’s failure to reveal that Brown was a CI for DTF was not a material omission. As discussed previously, the warrant affidavit was based on Brown’s possession and sale of illegal drugs, which did not fall within the scope of his duties as a CI. Brown’s activities as a CI were unrelated to his criminal behavior, which formed the basis for the affidavit.\u201d People v. Brown, 2023 Mich. App. LEXIS 5120 (July 20, 2023).* (So defendant outs himself as a CI?)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The identified CI gave reasonable suspicion for this stop. United States v. Windecker, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124526 (D.Mont. July 18, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s successive \u00a7 2254 petition claim that the judge issuing the warrant here (\u201cJudge 185\u201d) didn\u2019t exist was essentially presented as a successive petition before in 2022, and it\u2019s denied. In re Jackson, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 18409 (11th Cir. July 19, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The district court\u2019s electronic search condition for supervised release was not an abuse of discretion and was related to his being a sex offender. United States v. Cruz-Rivera, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 18449 (7th Cir. July 20, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cAgent Merle’s failure to reveal that Brown was a CI for DTF was not a material omission. As discussed previously, the warrant affidavit was based on Brown’s possession and sale of illegal drugs, which did not fall within the scope … Continue reading