22 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. E.D.Wis.: CI’s only nonpublic fact wasn’t corroborated, so no RS

    Law Offices of John Wesley HallJohn Wesley HallJuly 28, 2016

    United States v. Derrick, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96022 (E.D.Wis. June 10, 2016), adopted, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96006 (E.D.Wis. July 22, 2016):In Illinois v. Gates, the Supreme Court held that a highly detailed tip from an anonymous informant that was corroborated by independent police work establishes probable cause. 462 U.S. 213, 246, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1983); see also White, 496 U.S. at 329 (stating that if “an informant is shown to be right about some things, he is probably right about other facts that he has alleged, including the claim that the object of the tip is engaged in criminal activity”). In White, the Court set forth the following approach for analyzing the reliability of an informant’s tip: “if a tip has a relatively low degree of reliability, more information will be required to establish the requisite quantum of suspicion than would be required if the tip were more reliable.”

  2. E.D.Mich.: Illegally obtained evidence cannot be used to establish probable cause

    Law Offices of John Wesley HallNovember 13, 2018

    Id. (citing Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1983)) (internal punctuation omitted). Here, the affidavits for the search warrants of MV-1’s cell phones, Gordon’s home, and Gordon’s car, and the affidavit for the arrest warrant of Gordon are solely supported by illegally-obtained information.

  3. CA11: Ten officers for a “knock and talk” violated Jardines, but it wasn’t the cause of the search of the house

    Law Offices of John Wesley HallJohn Wesley HallApril 10, 2018

    “The question whether the exclusionary rule’s remedy is appropriate in a particular context has long been regarded as an issue separate from the question whether the Fourth Amendment rights of the party seeking to invoke the rule were violated by police conduct.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 223, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2324, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1983). In Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 126 S. Ct. 2159, 165 L. Ed. 2d 56 (2006), the Supreme Court held that exclusion of evidence was not required when police officers committed a Fourth Amendment violation by failing to “knock and announce” when executing a search warrant.

  4. SD: Search incident doctrine doesn’t apply to driver’s urine samples

    Law Offices of John Wesley HallJohn Wesley HallFebruary 27, 2018

    Until and unless the United States Supreme Court offers further guidance on applying the search-incident-to-arrest exception to searching an arrestee’s urine, this Court will adhere to the Fourth Amendment’s “strong preference for searches conducted pursuant to a warrant[.]” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2331, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1983). Other courts have similarly held.

  5. S.D.Ohio: Affidavit for SW judicially estopped govt to claim no standing

    Law Offices of John Wesley HallJohn Wesley HallFebruary 19, 2018

    123-1 at PageID 462-63.) Evidence that nearly 50,000 grams (in excess of 100 pounds) of marijuana, $142,210 in cash, and three handguns were found at the residence of Defendant, the alleged leader of the gang under investigation, most certainly had to play some part in the “totality-of-the-circumstances” analysis required by Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1983).All these factors prompt the Court to decide that judicial estoppel bars the Government from arguing that Defendant lacks standing to contest the Tuxworth Avenue search warrant.

  6. CA11: Franks challenge fails; officer’s frank admission of mistake [apparently] helped show mere negligence in including it

    Law Offices of John Wesley HallJohn Wesley HallNovember 3, 2017

    Probable cause exists when “there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2332, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1983).Here, the facts remaining in the affidavit include: (1) a minor was engaging in prostitution in a room without any personal belongings, (2) the room and the room across the hall were paid for by Reddick, and (3) Reddick’s phone was used to place online ads for sexual encounters with the minor.

  7. CA9: ATF officer’s SW affidavit said dealers of illegal drugs and guns often use cell phones showed nexus; recording phone’s SN at book-in wasn’t unreasonable

    Law Offices of John Wesley HallJohn Wesley HallJanuary 31, 2017

    To find probable cause, the magistrate judge need only find that there is a “fair probability” that the search will reveal “evidence of a crime.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1983). Here, the government’s search warrant application provided extensive information establishing that, at the time law enforcement seized Lowe’s cellphone during his booking and arrest in November 2013, the phone likely contained evidence of federal firearms and narcotics violations.

  8. Police Ignorance Is An Excuse Under Federal, But Not New York, Law

    Easton Thompson Kasperek Shiffrin LLPDecember 28, 2014

    People v. P. J. Video, 68 N.Y.2d 296, 304, 508 N.Y.S.2d 907, 501 N.E.2d 556 [on remand], quoting People v. Johnson, 66 N.Y.2d 398, 407, 497 N.Y.S.2d 618, 488 N.E.2d 439). Accordingly, we have in recent years carved out an independent body of principles to govern citizen-police encounters in a number of specific areas (see, e.g., People v. P. J. Video, supra [warrant application requirements in obscenity cases]; People v. Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417, 497 N.Y.S.2d 630, 488 N.E.2d 451 [declining to follow "good faith" test outlined in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 and Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981, 104 S.Ct. 3424, 82 L.Ed.2d 737]; People v. Johnson, 66 N.Y.2d 398, 497 N.Y.S.2d 618, 488 N.E.2d 439, supra [declining to apply "totality of circumstances" test outlined in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 to warrantless arrests]; People v. Class, 67 N.Y.2d 431, 503 N.Y.S.2d 313, 494 N.E.2d 444 [on remand] [search for vehicle identification number in connection with traffic stop]; People v. Gokey, 60 N.Y.2d 309, 469 N.Y.S.2d 618, 457 N.E.2d 723 [warrantless search incident to arrest]; People v. Belton, 55 N.Y.2d 49, 447 N.Y.S.2d 873, 432 N.E.2d 745, supra [search of personal effects within automobile]; People v. Landy, 59 N.Y.2d 369, 465 N.Y.S.2d 857, 452 N.E.2d 1185, [reiterating Elwell rule]; People v. Elwell, 50 N.Y.2d 231, 428 N.Y.S.2d 655, 406 N.E.2d 471, supra [probable cause predicated on informant's tip]; see also, People v. Stith, 69 N.Y.2d 313, 316, n. 514 N.Y.S.2d 201, 506 N.E.2d 911, [exclusionary rule as it pertains to inevitable discovery doctrine] ). People v. Torres, 74 NY2d 224, 228, 543 NE2d 61, 63–64 [1989].

  9. Illinois v. Gates Case Brief

    Kentucky Justice & Public Safety CabinetJuly 19, 2001

    Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317 (1983)FACTS: Bloomingdale police received an anonymous letter that included statements that the Gates (husband and wife) were engaged in selling drugs. The text of the letter follows:This letter is to inform you that you have a couple in your town who strictly make their living on selling drugs.

  10. CA7: Considering that SWs are entitled to deference, the strong inference here doesn’t have to be proved

    Law Offices of John Wesley HallAugust 25, 2018

    The decision of the judge who issued the warrant receives ‘great deference’. See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236 (1983); United States v. McIntire, 516 F.3d 576, 577-79 (7th Cir. 2008). With the benefit of ‘great deference,’ this warrant is valid.”