D.Conn.: When govt raises an exception to warrant requirement, def must rebut in briefing, but cell phone seizure shown unjustified

In response to defendant’s motion to suppress, the government argued search incident, which the defense didn’t rebut in the papers. Motion denied in part. Defendant’s cell phone seizure is suppressed, however, because the government didn’t show justification for its seizure. United States v. Walters, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43690 (D. Conn. Mar. 9, 2021).

Defendant failed in his Franks offer of proof. “The unsworn testimony of the alleged informant’s husband does not cause us to discount Detective McGee’s sworn testimony that he interviewed the informant.” United States v. Boyle, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 6772 (3d Cir. Mar. 9, 2021).*

“The Court finds that the [informant hearsay] supporting the Warrant was not stale because the CI’s statements suggested that Defendant’s criminal activity was ongoing.” United States v. Windom, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43626 (D. Colo. Mar, 9, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Burden of pleading, Burden of proof, Cell phones, Franks doctrine, Overseizure, Staleness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.