Being the target of a search doesn\u2019t automatically establish standing. There were four packages here sent under assumed names to assumed names. The anticipatory warrant was based on probable cause. United States v. Taylor, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36749 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 4, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The CS here provided information for a search warrant but then ghosted the officers. The fact a CS fails to further continue to cooperate is not Franks material. Jordan v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35593 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 28, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant was in an Uber stopped on I-90 at 4 am in the rain because the windows were tinted too dark. There was also reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking based on baggage at the airport put in the Uber by a confederate wearing a ski mask, defendant not handling any bags, as well as a drug history. United States v. Sanders, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35516 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 29, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Being the target of a search doesn\u2019t automatically establish standing. There were four packages here sent under assumed names to assumed names. The anticipatory warrant was based on probable cause. United States v. Taylor, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36749 (N.D. … Continue reading