This geofence warrant was slightly different than Chatrie\u2019s. Still, the good faith exception applies. \u201cIn this case, law enforcement acted pursuant to a warrant that was not so facially deficient that the executing officers could not reasonably presume it to be valid. The inquiry is \u2018whether the officer could have reasonably believed the materials presented to the magistrate judge \u2026 were sufficient to establish probable cause.\u2019 \u2026 It is reasonable for law enforcement to have believed the Timing Advance warrant appropriately authorized them to obtain the cell site data described in Attachments A and B. Dickerson’s motion to suppress was properly denied because the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies.\u201d United States v. Dickerson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192861 (E.D. Wis. Sep. 30, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
By the time of the stop, the officers already had probable cause to believe there were drugs in the car. \u201cThough there could have been a non-criminal reason for all of this conduct, the officers were not obligated to ascribe innocent explanations to it.\u201d United States v. Hicks, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193676 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 30, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2255 petitioner doesn\u2019t show ineffective assistance of counsel for not properly challenging two searches before his guilty plea because they were valid searches. United States v. Peterson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193615 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 30, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
This geofence warrant was slightly different than Chatrie\u2019s. Still, the good faith exception applies. \u201cIn this case, law enforcement acted pursuant to a warrant that was not so facially deficient that the executing officers could not reasonably presume it to … Continue reading