E.D.Mich.: Being a “drug dealer” alone isn’t probable cause to search his house; more required, and it’s present

The fact defendant is a “drug dealer” alone isn’t probable cause to search his house. Coupled with him coming and going to drug deals is. United States v. Sewell, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15376 (E.D.Mich. Feb. 9, 2016).

The government met its burden on voluntariness of consent and that the consent to search the car was general and not limited. Also, defendant’s charge of FIPF suggests his prior experience in the criminal justice system, another factor in voluntariness. United States v. Harris, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16861 (E.D.Va. Feb. 10, 2016).

The government showed probable cause for searches of seven cell phones and multiple addresses, the court explaining as to each. United States v. Beasley, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15099 (D.Kan. Feb. 8, 2016).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Consent, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.