D.P.R.: Defendant had standing in a pleasure craft’s common areas, but he abandoned it

Defendant had standing in the common areas of a pleasure craft the same as joint users have in a hotel room. However, he effectively abandoned the boat after the first search and gave up his reasonable expectation of privacy. United States v. Franki-Irizarry, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125722 (D. P.R. August 21, 2009).*

While prosecutors only have qualified immunity for investigative functions, issuing subpoenas for third party held information did not violate plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights, so they prevail. Rehberg v. Paulk, 598 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 2010).*

Officers had probable cause to arrest defendant for a felony, and her search incident was justified. United States v. Bell, 692 F. Supp. 2d 606 (W.D. Va. 2010).*

Defendant was handcuffed when he was stopped, but, on the totality of circumstances, his consent was valid. United States v. Coppedge, 369 Fed. Appx. 338 (3d Cir. 2010) (unpublished).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.