D.Utah: One who is not named on a FedEx package as sender or recipient lacks standing

Defendant was neither the sender nor recipient of a FedEx package, so he lacked standing to challenge its search. The search warrant was for two packages identified by their tracking numbers. The fact the packages were not in the exact location described in the warrant at the time of the search was of no constitutional significance because the particularity requirement was satisfied. United States v. Silouangkhoth, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43545 (D. Utah April 21, 2011).*

Cleveland PD policy that gives discretion in what is removed from a vehicle for safekeeping and what is left in it does not make the inventory unreasonable, and the inventory is of what is left in the vehicle. United States v. Hughes, 420 Fed. Appx. 533 (6th Cir. April 22, 2011).*

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not better opposing the search of his hotel room on a protective sweep theory rather than search incident. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the conviction on protective sweep, and that is law of the case. Atchley v. United States, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43567 (E.D. Tenn. April 21, 2011).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.