CA3: A corporate shareholder and executive doesn’t have standing in the corporation’s computer server; no personal connection

“To show he can challenge the search of SPI’s and CDS’s offices and the seizure of the employees’ computers and network server as a shareholder and executive, Nagle must show a personal connection to the place searched or to the item seized and that he attempted to keep the place and item private. Nagle has failed to meet this standard.” United States v. Nagle, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17187 (3d Cir. September 30, 2015).

Pro se 2255 petitioner’s claim that his counsel should have immediately appealed denial of his motion to suppress wasn’t a claim because there was no right to appeal pretrial. He pled and waived it. United States v. Golson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130393 (M.D.Pa. September 28, 2015).*

The pipe in defendant’s belt loop was in plain view, and that, coupled with the late night stop on a busy highway and defendant’s excessive nervousness was probable cause on the totality for a search of his car. United States v. Barmore, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131129 (W.D.La. August 14, 2015),* adopted 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131187 (W.D. La. September 27, 2015).*