VoteKansas.org

Defendant was the subject of a wiretap, and he was confronted on the street about having a gun in his possession. He allowed a frisk and no gun was found. Officers went to his house and knocked. When the door was opened, a gun was seen through the open door. Entry without a warrant was justified by exigent circumstances that the gun would disappear if it was not seized. Officers did not arrest on the spot to keep the wiretap viable. "Conversations subsequently monitored contained a statement by Shingles that 'I'm glad they didn't find that sawed off.'" United States v. Rodgers, 924 F.2d 219 (11th Cir. 1991); United States v. Smalls, 617 F. Supp.2d 1240 (S.D. Fla. 2008). United States v. Shingles, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41130 (S.D. Fla. March 2, 2012).

Because no suspicion was required to search Asprilla and because probable cause existed that he was residing at his girlfriend’s Ingalls Street apartment, we need not consider whether the search was alternately justified by exigent circumstances.” United States v. Asprilla, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6232 (9th Cir. March 27, 2012) (unpublished).*

Defendant allegedly threatened a neighbor with a gun, and the neighbor called the police. An officer ran defendant’s name finding a PV warrant out for a prior offense of FIPF. The officer went to defendant’s house, and his wife had apparent authority to consent to a search for the gun. United States v. Schmitz, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6211 (11th Cir. March 27, 2012) (unpublished).*

Claim that officers made up the allegations of the affidavit for the search warrant still did not warrant a Franks hearing. He at least needs to make a proffer of the falsity and what rebuts. United States v. Wade, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40754 (W.D. Pa. March 26, 2012):

7. Defendant did not, however, present a sufficient preliminary showing that the affidavit contained a false statement. He is, therefore, not entitled to a Franks hearing, and the court must deny the Motion for a Franks Hearing (ECF No. 57). Defendant presented no evidence to contradict any of the averments made in the application for the warrant. His attempt to eliminate the potential callers (and by process of elimination present testimony that no confidential informant called defendant at the appropriate time) failed. The warrant application contains a statement that the CI called Wade's phone sometime after 6:30 p.m. and before 6:55 p.m., which is when Churilla and the CI departed the police station heading to Wade's residence. There are at least five telephone calls from unidentified callers (Callers A, B, C, D, and E) in that time period which were answered, any of which could be attributable to the CI.

The government’s warrantless use of GPS on vehicles in violation of Jones does not lead to suppression. On the vehicle search, there was consent of the operator and no standing of the others. “Neither of these Defendants has presented evidence showing either an ownership or contractual interest in any of these vehicles or exclusivity of use such that would give rise to a legitimate expectation of privacy.” On a dwelling search, the evidence showed that a search warrant would have issued anyway under the independent source doctrine when the GPS information was removed from the warrant. On another vehicle search, there was independent probable cause for its search apart from the GPS monitoring. United States v. Luna-Santillanes, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40532 (E.D. Mich. March 26, 2012).