D.Neb.: Violation of an ATF regulation during administrative search of an FFL doesn’t justify suppression without a 4A violation

Defendant had a federal firearms dealer license and he was subjected to an inspection. Firearms dealers, of course, are closely regulated businesses. After the motion to suppress was denied, he decided that ATF regulations were violated. The court concludes, based on United States v. Caceres, that violation of an ATF regulation does not warrant suppression because there was no Fourth Amendment violation. United States v. Melton, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170322 (D. Neb. Sept. 12, 2019).

Defendant didn’t show that the cell phone searched was hers or that she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in it. Therefore, she can’t contest it. United States v. Dean, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170344 (W.D. N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019).*

This entry was posted in Administrative search, Cell phones, Reasonable expectation of privacy. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.