Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his tent in a homeless encampment on someone else\u2019s private property. That\u2019s \u201cwrongful presence.\u201d He also disclaimed the tent, but standing is enough to deny relief. United States v. Tillman, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5386 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 12, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The CI\u2019s information recounted in the affidavit for warrant was sufficiently reliable for probable cause. \u201cThe confidential informant was an associate of the defendant who had the opportunity to observe the defendant’s illegal activities. The confidential informant told Paoletti that he or she had purchased drugs from the defendant and that the defendant was selling cocaine from his residence. The confidential informant provided a detailed description of the floor plan of the defendant’s residence, indicating that the defendant’s bedroom was on the second floor of the residence, on the \u2018left hand side as one enters through the kitchen.\u2019 Based on the confidential informant’s familiarity with the layout of the defendant’s residence, it was reasonable to infer that he or she had been inside the residence. The confidential informant also identified the specific type of firearm that the defendant had in his possession.\u201d State v. Velazquez, 2026 Conn. App. LEXIS 17 (Jan. 13, 2026).* [Not even close.]<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his tent in a homeless encampment on someone else\u2019s private property. That\u2019s \u201cwrongful presence.\u201d He also disclaimed the tent, but standing is enough to deny relief. United States v. Tillman, 2026 U.S. … Continue reading