CA3 adopts two part functional rule of private search, and this one was

Defendant’s wife was not acting as an agent of the state when she procured defendant’s cell phone which produced evidence of sexual exploitation of a child. “Four of our sister Courts of Appeals assess whether a private party was an agent of the government by evaluating two factors: (1) whether the government knew of and acquiesced in the intrusive conduct, and (2) whether the private citizen performing the search intended to assist law enforcement or acted to further her or his own legitimate and independent purposes.” The court adopts this majority rule, and the search was purely private. United States v. Kramer, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 19742 (3d Cir. Aug. 1, 2023).

Defendant disclaimed interest in an apartment but he still retained a subjective expectation of privacy in it, especially considering the government’s efforts to link him to its contents. Nevertheless, a person with apparent authority consented to its search. United States v. Ríos-Orama, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132794 (D.P.R. July 31, 2023).*

Defendant’s appellate issue that his detention was without reasonable suspicion is mooted by his acquittal on appeal for insufficient evidence. Taylor v. Commonwealth, 2023 Va. App. LEXIS 500 (Aug. 1, 2023).*

Defendant was not seized until he was pulled from his tractor trailer cab where he first avoided seizure. Hussein v. Commonwealth, 2023 Va. App. LEXIS 521 (Aug. 1, 2023).*