Defendant lacked standing in the place searched, so he’s denied a Franks hearing to challenge that omission from the affidavit for search warrant. “The only connection between Defendant and 10 H Hall Manor reflected in the Affidavit of Probable Cause is that the informant tipped the police that Defendant, identified by his nickname ‘Menace,’ sold drugs from that address.” United States v. Sawyers, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137080 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 14, 2019).
The parties’ dispute as to when defendant was seized is resolved by the government’s concession it was at least when he was ordered to put his hands in the air and get down on the ground. United States v. Cardona, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136974 (D. N.M. Aug. 14, 2019).*
“In this case, Dorsey abandoned his phone by failing to contest its seizure or otherwise seek its return.” [What a Catch-22 that is. What’s wrong with waiting for the search and then contesting it when you find out about it. Seeking return of a cell phone is an utterly futile act when the government merely says: “It might be evidence.” because that means it’s denied.] United States v. Dorsey, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136887 (D. Md. Aug. 14, 2019).*