When a written document is involved and discussed in a search warrant affidavit, including the document is not constitutionally required. Misstating it might make a Franks claim. United States v. Shetty, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161863 (W.D. Wash. Sep. 9, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cNeither party provided the Court with their view of when the earliest Rodriguez moment occurred. Despite this, the Court concludes that under the totality of the circumstances, viewed objectively, the facts available to Trooper Adams were sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot even before he had finished making his initial traffic-related inquiries of defendant.\u201d United States v. Holyfield, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161870 (W.D. Pa. Sep. 9, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWe agree with the trial court that sufficient independent and lawfully obtained information supported probable cause to issue the search warrant on Siders’s residence.\u201d State v. Siders, 2024 Mo. App. LEXIS 624 (Sep. 10, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
When a written document is involved and discussed in a search warrant affidavit, including the document is not constitutionally required. Misstating it might make a Franks claim. United States v. Shetty, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161863 (W.D. Wash. Sep. 9, … Continue reading