Daily Archives: January 28, 2022

CA3: Def’s not showing himself for 5-6 minutes when police entered on an arrest warrant justified protective sweep

Police executed an arrest warrant at defendant’s house. It took him 5-6 minutes to show himself, coming from the basement. A protective sweep of the basement was reasonable, and firearms were found in plain view down there. A search warrant … Continue reading

Posted in Administrative search, Arrest or entry on arrest, Protective sweep | Comments Off on CA3: Def’s not showing himself for 5-6 minutes when police entered on an arrest warrant justified protective sweep

E.D.N.Y.: Complaint about co-def’s cell phone search was “specious,” and def doesn’t even have standing

Defendant’s claim the information about a co-conspirator’s phone search must be fabricated because that search warrant wasn’t in his discovery was “specious.” He doesn’t even have standing. Edwards v. United States, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14407 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2022).* … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Issue preclusion, Standing | Comments Off on E.D.N.Y.: Complaint about co-def’s cell phone search was “specious,” and def doesn’t even have standing

M.D.Fla.: Cell phone calls with co-conspirator was PC for phone, and GFE applies anyway

Defendant was indicted in Florida for endangered species trafficking, occurring partly in California and Florida. The fact he talked 186 minutes with a co-conspirator over a year was probable cause to search his phone for evidence. Also, the good faith … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Consent, Probable cause | Comments Off on M.D.Fla.: Cell phone calls with co-conspirator was PC for phone, and GFE applies anyway

CA1: DoJ MMJ appropriations rider does not implicate the exclusionary rule

The DoJ appropriations rider* that limits spending any federal funds of medical marijuana-type cases does not permit the court of appeals enjoining the prosecution by interlocutory appeal. That does not implicate the grand jury’s power to consider the case, nor … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on CA1: DoJ MMJ appropriations rider does not implicate the exclusionary rule

CA9: IRS didn’t coerce consent, def was advised of rights in writing

“To prove a Fourth Amendment violation, Orrock needed to show by clear and convincing evidence that an IRS agent induced a consent search by deceit, trickery, or an affirmative misrepresentation. … No IRS agent made an affirmative misrepresentation. Rather, Orrock … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Immigration arrests | Comments Off on CA9: IRS didn’t coerce consent, def was advised of rights in writing