FL1: Def’s setting up date via cell phone app where he sexually battered victim led to PC for SW for his cell phone

Defendant’s victim claimed to the police she was met through a phone app, sexually battered, and robbed. She identified defendant by his truck. “This information would have been enough to obtain a search warrant of Ferguson’s cell phones, even without the identification from the photographic lineup. … The search of Ferguson’s cell phones revealed pictures of him holding what looked like a firearm. It also showed that he frequented Backpage.com and that he visited the victim’s ad on that website.” Ferguson v. State, 2021 Fla. App. LEXIS 6205 (Fla. 1st DCA Apr. 30, 2021).

Defendant’s post-proceeding motion for return of property wasn’t timely and was thus denied. Bracht v. State, 2021 Fla. App. LEXIS 6208 (Fla. 1st DCA Apr. 30, 2021).

Defendant consented to a search of the backpack in the car. No drugs were found, but that acceded to the implausible explanations already given and still forthcoming. United States v. Pacheco, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 12898 (8th Cir. Apr. 30, 2021).*

The supervised release search condition was based on particularized findings and was thus reasonable. United States v. Dahda, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 12919 (10th Cir. Apr. 30, 2021).*

Defendant in his 2255 doesn’t show his allegedly overlooked suppression issue would prevail to be able to get relief. Prather v. United States, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82837 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 30, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Ineffective assistance, Probable cause, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion, Rule 41(g) / Return of property. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.