D.Nev.: Ability to manage day-to-day operations doesn’t give standing over whole business space

(1) “Accordingly, although Defendant had the discretion to manage the day-to-day operation of LLB, the Court finds he did not actually manage the day-to-day operations of the business.” “In this context, ownership of premises alone does not automatically confer standing. Therefore, while the Court considers Defendant ultimately owns the building the Sunset Office was located within, it does not assign dispositive weight to his ownership.” Defendant does not have standing to challenge searches of offices of employees within the building. (2) Omission of the entirety of the CI’s criminal history isn’t material when the CI is fully corroborated. United States v. Bradford, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158330 (D. Nev. Sep. 6, 2023).

The officer had reasonable suspicion defendant’s DL was still suspended in Missouri because he was still in North Dakota apparently since the last stop. United States v. Cartwright, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157742 (D.N.D. Sep. 6, 2023).*

In seeking a CoA from denial of a 2254, failure to seek recusal of the trial judge because he signed the search warrant, too, is not a ground for reversal under Tennessee law [let alone the Fourth Amendment]. Harris v. Fitz, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 23755 (6th Cir. Sep. 6, 2023).*

Defendant’s stop for littering was reasonable. He was obligated to identify himself when stopped. His picking up the trash doesn’t end the investigation. United States v. Thomas, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158101 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Neutral and detached magistrate, Reasonable suspicion, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.