Defendant might not have standing but there was probable cause, so standing doesn’t have to be decided. Probable cause for the search warrant for defendant’s cell phone was predicated on his social media postings of him holding firearms, and they were found on the phone. United States v. Brown, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111884 (N.D. Ind. July 19, 2017).
“It is undisputed that Powell threw the firearm out of the moving vehicle before he abandoned the car and ran into the woods. The law is clear that abandoned property is not subject to a Fourth Amendment challenge.” United States v. Webb, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112289 (M.D. Ala. June 28, 2017).*
Months of historical CSLI, rather than just three day’s worth, was properly acquired by the government to show defendant’s connections to the property at issue. The third party doctrine provides defendant no relief [yet]. United States v. Serrano, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112399 (S.D. N.Y. July 18, 2017).
Defendant was a mere passenger, and he has no standing to challenge the search of the car, despite his claiming a possessory interest in the firearm found inside. United States v. Taylor, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111895 (E.D. Wis. July 19, 2017).*
Defendant’s 2255 Franks IAC claim fails for not showing what the false statements were and how probable cause was undermined. United States v. Johnson, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112806 (D. Md. July 20, 2017).
Defendant’s moving his hands around in a vehicle prior to getting out supported a frisk. United States v. Davis, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112912 (S.D. W.Va. July 20, 2017).*
There were stationary bugs that recorded conversations, and the government has declined to use them at trial after much litigation. Still, there is “a heap of incriminating evidence” derived from all kinds of sources, and the court won’t suppress all that was legally obtained under its supervisory power. Defendants sought to suppress everything from that date on, but they can’t show a cause in fact that anything else derived from them. United States v. Giraudo, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111757 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2017):
The time limit for the search to occur in the warrant is for the place to be searched. When computers are seized under the warrant to be searched elsewhere, they are not subject to that time limit. United States v. Boker, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111320 (W.D. N.C. July 18, 2017).
The district court concluded defendant wasn’t in custody in his own car for an interview with two postal inspectors that resulted in his arrest. Whether Miranda warnings were given before the recording started, a fact in dispute, isn’t even dispositive. United States v. Vanderbeck, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13168 (3d Cir. July 21, 2017).*
Time and proximity are important in the reasonable suspicion calculus. The closer in time with proximity to the scene of a crime, the more likely the suspect is involved in the suspected or already occurred criminal activity. Here, however, two alleged lookouts to two robberies was not enough. “Looking at the totality of the circumstances, the lookouts, which boiled down to two black men in a white car, at high noon on a weekday, in downtown D.C., were simply insufficient to generate any particularized suspicion that the appellants here were the suspects being sought in connection with the Prince and Whitaker robberies.” Armstrong v. United States, 2017 D.C. App. LEXIS 198 (July 20, 2017).
Defendant’s property was searched by two children and their mother, clearly private actors. United States v. Jordan, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13152 (4th Cir. July 21, 2017).*
The specific triggering event for this anticipatory warrant was handing the package to defendant, but that did not happen. The police entered anyway and seized. The Sixth Circuit recognizes that the triggering event has to be considered in a common sense fashion. United States v. Miggins, 302 F.3d 384, 395 (6th Cir. 2002); United States v. Penney, 576 F.3d 297, 310-11 (6th Cir. 2009). Those cases are distinguishable here because the factual differences between what happened and the triggering event were minor. Here they are not. Finally, the good faith exception did not apply on these facts. In addition, defendant undertook a burden to show that the FedEx employee searching his package was seeking to aid law enforcement, but he failed in that burden. United States v. Perkins, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109865 (E.D. Tenn. July 5, 2017), overruling in part 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110512 (E.D. Tenn. April 20, 2017):