CA7: Defendant’s girlfriend sufficiently controlled defendant’s safe in their house to consent to its seizure by the police

Defendant’s girlfriend sufficiently controlled the safe in her house and she could consent to police seizure of the safe, which was later opened with a search warrant. Defendant moved the safe to her house and only his things were in it. She knew the combination, and she told the police there was a gun in it and merely remained silent when the police expressed an interest in seizing the safe. United States v. James, 571 F.3d 707 (7th Cir. 2009).*

Trial court’s crediting officers over defendant’s completely implausible testimony as to defendant’s “standing” was not error. United States v. Cossio, 336 Fed. Appx. 909 (11th Cir. 2009) (unpublished).*

The officer called for defendant to come to talk to him, and defendant fled, dropping a gun. Seizure of the gun was valid. United States v. Knight, 336 Fed. Appx. 900 (11th Cir. 2009) (unpublished).*

19 month delay in getting search warrant for defendant’s seized computer was unreasonable. United States v. Freeman, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58198 (D. Ore. July 8, 2009).*

Nexus was shown based on the probable cause and the premises [without saying what it was]. United States v. Danner, 344 Fed. Appx. 495 (11th Cir. 2009) (unpublished).*

Defendant’s hiding his hands, refusing to get back in his vehicle, not looking ahead when told to do so, and then attempting to strike the officer was reasonable suspicion. [Obviously the latter is enough to arrest.] United States v. Hollins, 336 Fed. Appx. 921 (11th Cir. 2009) (unpublished).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.