United States v. Lonnie Hodge

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that Hodge’s response to a question about whether there was “anything in the house that could get anyone there hurt” was admissible under the public-safety exception
• observing that statements of named informants are “generally sufficient to establish probable cause”
• exhaustive search of house for drugs would have inevitably led law enforcement to discover a pipe bomb
• “Statements from a source named in a warrant application . . . are generally sufficient to establish probable cause without further corroboration because the legal consequences of lying to law enforcement officials tend to ensure reliability.” (citation omitted)
• “This burden is met if the government shows ‘that routine procedures that police would have used regardless of the illegal search would have resulted in the discovery of the disputed evidence.’” (quoting United States v. Ford, 184 F.3d 566, 577 (6th Cir. 1999))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).