D.Minn.: Rehashing 4A argument to USMJ isn’t a proper objection to the R&R

Defendant’s general objections to the R&R on his search claims don’t attempt to show the alleged errors in the USMJ’s reasoning and just rehashed the original arguments. Overruled, and adopted. United States v. Shaka, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19267 (D. Minn. Feb. 4, 2025).*

The government carried its burden of consent. “The dispositive facts that require denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress are that Mrs. Ramos gave the NYPD written and verbal consent to search her apartment, and there is no evidence of coercion by the police that would render her consent involuntary. … There is no dispute that Mrs. Ramos signed a Consent Form. See GX1; Tr. at 123:9 (Mrs. Ramos: ‘I signed it.’). It states that she ‘voluntarily consent[ed] to a complete search’ of her apartment. GX1. The Consent Form that Mrs. Ramos indisputably signed also advised her of her rights to ‘refuse’ and to ‘revoke’ her consent, in whole or in part, at any time. GX1. Further, at the hearing, the defendant’s own witness, Tiffany Mercado, testified that the police ‘asked’ for and received Mrs. Ramos’ verbal consent to search the closet where they found the rifle and ammunition the defense seeks to suppress.” United States v. Ramos, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18056 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2025).*

A tracking order to install a tracker on a package left outdoors expected to be moved again permitted entry into the backyard of an apartment house to place it. Also, there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in that backyard. United States v. Bell, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19151 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 4, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Curtilage, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Tracking warrant. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.