TX5: Def driving his boss’s truck by permission had standing

Defendant driving his boss’s truck by permission had standing. Here, the issue was the scope of his consent to search it. The trial court’s conclusion he only was agreeing that he wasn’t the owner of the truck was sustained on appeal. Suppression affirmed. State v. Sikes, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 3338 (Tex. App. – Dallas May 15, 2025).

Habeas petitioner alleges ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to argue a search issue but gives no basis to support it. Pizarro v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93089 (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2025).*

“Bussey’s arguments are unconvincing. If Bussey’s proposed changes to the affidavit were made, the affidavit would merely show that the employer signed the letter and that investigators had conversations with Burnam, in which Bussey was not mentioned. These alterations would not materially impact probable cause. Therefore, I overrule Bussey’s objections to this portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.” United States v. Bussey, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92983 (S.D. Ga. May 14, 2025).*

Probable cause was shown for this anticipatory warrant. United States v. Ruiz-Ruiz, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92867 (D.P.R. May 13, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Anticipatory warrant, Burden of pleading, Probable cause, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.