Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for FreeJ. Procaccini affirms the district court's findings that police had probable cause to arrest the defendant, later convicted of first-degree murder, and that police did not materially misrepresent information in an application for a warrant to search the defendant's residence, along with its denial of the defendant's motion to admit reverse-Spreigl evidence and his request to cross-examine a lead investigator as to whether police had investigated unnamed suspects from a prior shooting. Security footage depicting the defendant having an "animated exchange" with the victim at a bar, monitoring the victim inside the bar, going outside to an idling vehicle and reaching inside, climbing into a car across the street and turning off the headlights, the victim walking toward the car and the victim's subsequent collapse in the street near the car was sufficient to establish probable cause to arrest the defendant for the victim's murder. The district court also did not clearly err in finding that police's description of this interaction as a "confrontation" in their search warrant application was not reckless misrepresentation. The district court also did not abuse its discretion in finding that prior crimes of another person in the car and at the scene were not relevant to this case and in excluding that evidence, since there are few similarities between those crimes and this one, or in denying the request to question the lead investigator, since it properly cited concerns about the risk of creating unfair prejudice or impugning the victim's character and about a lack of relevance. Affirmed.