E.D.Mich.: A place probationer spent some nights wasn’t his official residence for probation search

Probation staff and the government failed to prove that the place searched under a probation search condition was defendant’s place. He was permitted to stay with relatives on occasion but those were not his residences. The search is suppressed. United States v. Brewer, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132179 (E.D.Mich. July 31, 2023).

The dog arrived soon enough into the stop that it wasn’t delayed any. It was reasonable. State v. Heath, 2023-Ohio-2647, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 2609 (11th Dist. July 31, 2023).*

Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy from being recorded by an IRS agent he invited into his office. Ramseur v. United States, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132146 (N.D. Tex. June 21, 2023).*

Defendant’s Franks challenge fails for lack of the affiant’s intent to mislead and lack of materiality. As to two places searched, he doesn’t have standing either. United States v. Bolling, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132105 (S.D.W.Va. July 31, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Dog sniff, Franks doctrine, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.