The \u201cin the presence\u201d of the officer for misdemeanor arrests is not a part of the common law, citing Woods v. City of Chicago, 234 F.3d 979, 995 (7th Cir. 2000). It is by statute or rule in various places. United States v. Warren, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210476 (N.D. Okla. Sep. 16, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The CI here provided photographs of the interior of defendant\u2019s house for the police. The defense claim that photographs can easily be altered nowadays isn\u2019t supported by anything other than speculation. But, the question is probable cause, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Lewis, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212725 (D. Alaska Oct. 27, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Despite defendant\u2019s suppressed statement, there was probable cause for the warrant for his place for clothes worn at the time of the murder. Commonwealth v. Almeida, 2025 Mass. LEXIS 546 (Oct. 27, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The \u201cin the presence\u201d of the officer for misdemeanor arrests is not a part of the common law, citing Woods v. City of Chicago, 234 F.3d 979, 995 (7th Cir. 2000). It is by statute or rule in various places. … Continue reading