CA6: Def showed no REP in package with a fake name sent to his house

Defendant showed no reasonable expectation of privacy in a package addressed to a fake name at his address. United States v. James, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 22766 (6th Cir. July 21, 2020).

Defendant failed to show that the challenged statements were recklessly or intentionally made or that they were material to the finding of probable cause. United States v. Sanders, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128345 (E.D. Ky. July 21, 2020).*

The officers were investigating a controlled buy of drugs involving a vehicle. The search incident doctrine doesn’t apply; the automobile exception does. United States v. Rutherford, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128349 (E.D. Tenn. July 21, 2020).*

This entry was posted in Anticipatory warrant, Automobile exception, Franks doctrine, Mail and packages. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.