The following excerpt is from United States v. Martin, 18-1468, 18-1916, 18-2795 (2nd Cir. 2020):
court's findings of historical fact for clear error, but analyze de novo the ultimate determination of such legal issues as probable cause and the good faith of police officials in relying upon a warrant." United States v. Smith, 9 F.3d 1007, 1011 (2d Cir. 1993). Here, we owe no particular deference to the district court's conclusions, and in reviewing whether there was probable cause for a search warrant our task "is simply to ensure that the [issuing judge] had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed," id., 9 F.3d at 1012 (internal quotation marks, alterations, and citations omitted). "A[n issuing judge's] determination of probable cause should be paid great deference by reviewing courts." Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236 (1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
"We review a sentence for procedural and substantive reasonableness, which is akin to a 'deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.'" United States v. McCrimon, 788 F.3d 75, 78 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 189 (2d Cir. 2008)).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.