Telephone number and subscriber name are sufficiently particular for a wiretap warrant. ESN is not required. United States v. Ortiz, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181423 (N.D. Cal. December 27, 2013).*<\/p>\n
Defendant certainly had standing to challenge his own stop in a car he was driving. The court decides he had standing on the search, too, arguendo, because it decides the merits against him on consent. Defendant immediately consented, so the request for consent didn\u2019t extend the stop. United States v. Berkley, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181706 (N.D. Ga. November 12, 2013), adopted 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181022 (N.D. Ga. December 30, 2013).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s car was seen twice in a high crime area, and it made a turn without using its signal light so it was stopped. The officers smelled marijuana, and that justified a search of the car. State v. Clark<\/a>, 21 Neb. App. 581, 842 N.W.2d 151 (2013).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading