Omitted information didn\u2019t negate probable cause. \u201cWhen considering the totality of the other facts included in the affidavit, the negative lab results do not negate the existence of probable cause for the search warrant. Here, the trial court admonished the State for this oversight and agreed that the omitted lab result is \u2018not a major part of the warrant, but still [is] a factor.\u2019 Nevertheless, the trial court ruled that \u2018there was enough presented\u2019 to support the issuance of the warrant. We agree. This assignment of error is without merit.\u201d State v. Hale, 2025 La. App. LEXIS 1749 (La. App. 1 Cir Sep. 19, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cMuch of Defendant’s argument simply argues inferences from the evidence in a manner more favorable to his position that he was unable to give voluntary consent based on his injury from the collision or his impairment, but we are bound by the trial court’s findings of fact which are not challenged as unsupported by the evidence.\u201d State v. Armstrong, 2025 N.C. App. LEXIS 607 (Sep. 17, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court doesn\u2019t find the officer\u2019s testimony there was a \u201cstrong odor\u201d of marijuana coming from the car to be credible. People v. Turnbull, 2025 VI SUPER 26, 2025 V.I. LEXIS 32 (Super. Ct. July 21, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Omitted information didn\u2019t negate probable cause. \u201cWhen considering the totality of the other facts included in the affidavit, the negative lab results do not negate the existence of probable cause for the search warrant. Here, the trial court admonished the … Continue reading