D.Minn.: To rely on one party’s consent to a phone call being recorded, the govt has to prove it

The extension of the stop here was based on reasonable suspicion from two CIs. The alert of a drug dog with 90% accuracy is probable cause. A recording of CI’s telephone call between him and defendant is suppressed because the government didn’t show CI consented. United States v. Reyes, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147440 (D. Minn. July 31, 2017), adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148227 (D. Minn. Sept. 12, 2017).

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not moving to suppress drugs on defendant’s person that would have been found in any event under inevitable discovery. State v. Boyd, 2017 Iowa App. LEXIS 956 (Sept. 13, 2017).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Ineffective assistance. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.