In a mail fraud case for violations of the Clean Water Act, the search warrant for the business\u2019s records was issued with probable cause: \u201cHailey’s inconsistent statements and inability to identify or locate records of the sources of his vegetable oil donors, or the buyer of his equipment, and his provision of a photograph of another facility, ECF No. 62-1, showed that Hailey had probably issued RINs without producing bio-diesel, and fraudulently caused wire transfers. There was \u2018a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime [would] be found\u2019 in Hailey\u2019s business records and in his home, office, and production facility.\u201d United States v. Hailey, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82053 (D. Md. June 13, 2012).* [If lack of probable cause is your only issue, you\u2019re almost certainly going to lose. The threshold is just not that high, and a judicial finding of PC is almost unassailable.]<\/p>\n
Defense counsel was hardly ineffective for not challenging the search and seizure in this case. The place searched was in \u201copen fields,\u201d a ditch near a road where drugs were hidden across the street. Besides, it\u2019s almost a certainty he lacked standing to challenge the search at all. Nunn v. United States, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81955 (M.D. Ala. May 29, 2012).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading