A nine-day delay between a shooting and the search warrant for defendant\u2019s place to look for the weapon wasn\u2019t stale. The standard for timeliness is simply common sense. State v. Stevens, 2025 N.C. App. LEXIS 489 (Aug. 6, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A strategic decision to forego a motion to suppress until it wasn\u2019t timely anymore and then deciding to file it wasn\u2019t good cause. It\u2019s not like new facts came to light, which has been. United States v. Weston, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149843 (E.D.N.Y. July 31, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Officers got information from a jail inmate that one \u201cTJ\u201d was involved in a string of car burglaries around Pensacola. The informant said he bought the gun he had from TJ and it was stolen. They knew TJ was staying at an extended stay hotel and went there to do a knock-and-talk. In the meanwhile, another officer was drafting a search warrant application for the room. When they arrived, \u201c[s]erendipitously (at least for Investigator Kelley), a rideshare was dropping off a man matching \u2018TJ’s\u2019 description and a female passenger in front of the Red Roof Inn’s porte cochere.\u201d They called out to him, and he ran, likely clutching a gun to his side. He was captured. A protective sweep was done of the room, and there were plenty of drugs. Motion to suppress denied. United States v. Fasold, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151780 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 7, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A nine-day delay between a shooting and the search warrant for defendant\u2019s place to look for the weapon wasn\u2019t stale. The standard for timeliness is simply common sense. State v. Stevens, 2025 N.C. App. LEXIS 489 (Aug. 6, 2025).* A … Continue reading