{"id":783,"date":"2007-06-17T07:44:28","date_gmt":"2007-02-14T12:41:08","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-02-14T12:41:08","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=783","title":{"rendered":"Franks motion supported by affidavits of interested parties was insufficient"},"content":{"rendered":"

The defendant supported his Franks<\/em> motion with affidavits of his relatives that he did not sell drugs, and the affidavits were suspect at best. “A number of courts have recognized, as did the circuit court, that, when a non-governmental informant is personally brought before the magistrate to testify to the facts that will establish probable cause in a warrant, the burden of determining the reliability of the informant then shifts to the court and away from law enforcement personnel.” If the informant is lying and the police do not know it, that is not a Franks<\/em> violation. People v. Gorosteata, 371 Ill. App. 3d 655, 309 Ill. Dec. 77, 863 N.E.2d 709 (1st Dist. 2007).<\/p>\n

Stop was objectively reasonable for running a stop sign, and odor of marijuana provided probable cause for a search. United States v. Watson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9626 (D. Neb. February 1, 2007).*<\/p>\n

Private removal of a tote bag by occupants where defendant was staying that had property of murder victims in it showed defendant lacked standing. Stinski v. State, 642 S.E.2d 1, 642 S.E.2d 1 (2007):<\/p>\n

The sole evidence on this issue introduced at the hearing on Stinski’s motion to suppress was testimony by a police officer that residents in the home where Stinski had been staying voluntarily removed the tote bag from the home then contacted the police to come for the bag and that the residents had repeated to police information they had overheard that indicated the bag contained items stolen from the victims.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Grandparents with whom defendant stay, and whom he had no right to exclude from his room, could consent to a search of his room. Rhone v. State, 2007 Ga. App. LEXIS 111 (February 12, 2007).*<\/p>\n

Violating an administrative limit on execution of arrest warrants outside of county does not equate with a constitutional violation. State v. Nielsen, 2007 Iowa App. LEXIS 45 (January 18, 2007).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-783","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/783","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=783"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/783\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=783"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=783"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=783"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}