United States v. Kevin Mendonsa

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding mere confirmation of “innocent static details” provided by a tipster about where an individual lived does not provide information about suspected criminal activity
• finding no probable cause when an informant without a track record provided an uncorroborated tip that the defendant was selling drugs in his home
• “A refusal to reply to an officer’s order to ‘open up’ can be implied from silence.”
• “The fact that a suspect lives at a particular location or drives a particular car does not provide any indication of criminal activity.”
• affiant failed to mention he had seen no suspicious activity at searched house in a week-long pre-search surveillance
• defendant's prior state criminal conviction for armed robbery insufficient to justify officers' breaking down of defendant's front door; forced entry requires \more specific inferences of exigency\ than the \mild exigency\ standard required for non-destructive entry

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).