“Based upon the totality of the circumstances and the Court’s assessment of the credibility of the parole officers, the Court finds that the [parole authority] lacked reasonable suspicion to search Neff’s cell phone. The results of the search, therefore, must be suppressed.” The reports generated at the time were direct without any of the color the parole officers put in their testimony. Therefore, the court finds against them on the credibility question and finds no reasonable suspicion. United States v. Neff, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166595 (N.D. Ohio Sep. 27, 2018).
Defendant sat through the suppression hearing, so he was aware of the strength of the government’s case, and he can’t fault defense counsel for not expressing it more vehemently. Hendricks v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166020 (D. V.I. Sep. 27, 2018).*