In a pharmacy fraud case, there was no showing of nexus to pharmacists\u2019 cell phones. Motion to suppress cell phones is granted. Also, under Franks, with an omission a higher standard of intent to mislead applies. Also, the affidavit is viewed as a whole, no line-by-line. United States v. Haney, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14804 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 27, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There was plenty for nexus to defendant\u2019s house. \u201cEven if a probable cause nexus did not exist, a hypothetical hard to square with existing precedent, the good faith exception would apply.\u201d United States v. Sullivan, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14829 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 27, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
After the ticket was issued, reasonable suspicion existed: \u201cAny one of these factors, standing alone, would be insufficient to support reasonable suspicion. In isolation, no single fact is dispositive of wrongdoing. However, when they are considered together, as required by the totality of the circumstances test, reasonable suspicion is met. Specifically, it was reasonable that Sergeant Kilpela suspected Ms. Conchas was trafficking narcotics. Thus, although the mission of the traffic stop had concluded when Sergeant Kilpela requested her consent to search the vehicle, it did not violate the Fourth Amendment to extend the seizure.\u201d United States v. Conchas, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15022 (D. Mont. Jan. 27, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In a pharmacy fraud case, there was no showing of nexus to pharmacists\u2019 cell phones. Motion to suppress cell phones is granted. Also, under Franks, with an omission a higher standard of intent to mislead applies. Also, the affidavit is … Continue reading