D.P.R.: “A motion to suppress is not a discovery tool.”

Defendant’s motion to suppress searches of cell phones is denied because he doesn’t show any standing in the phones that were searched. “A motion to suppress is not a discovery tool. Without a basic factual premise, the Court cannot discern threshold questions of law, such as standing.” United States v. Agosto-Pacheco, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182482 (D.P.R. Oct. 4, 2022). [If done right, it can be.]

Defendant’s stop for not having an LPN was valid. It turned out there was a drive out tag in the back, but it wasn’t visible to the officer. There were other furtive suspicious things he did in the car before the stop. Wilson v. State, 2022 Miss. App. LEXIS 354 (Oct. 4, 2022).*

There was probable cause for seizure of defendant’s cell phone for a later search warrant. United States v. Santiago, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182252 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 5, 2022).*

Just because the judge on the 2255 reviewed and issued a search warrant early in the case is no ground to recuse from the 2255. United States v. Peterson, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182438 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Motion to suppress. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.