The defense argued during a suppression motion that the officers coerced the signature of defendant\u2019s wife on the consent form, and put on testimony to that effect which the government never rebutted. After the motion to suppress was granted, the government filed a motion to reconsider, and it does not get \u201canother bite at the apple\u201d to put on witnesses. The government failed in its burden of showing that consent was voluntary the first time, and it should have done it then. United States v. Foster, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4569 (M.D. La. January 8, 2014).<\/p>\n
A state judge issued a warrant to track defendant\u2019s cell phone, and it was issued with probable cause. United States v. Rodriguez, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3589 (D. Or. January 10, 2014).*<\/p>\n
The government shouldn\u2019t have filed its response to the motion to suppress under seal, and it is unsealed. A motion to seal should be filed first. Defendant\u2019s Franks challenge is rejected. The fact the CI would be motivated by money and therefore should not be believed is not a Franks issue. Defendant was a gambler with the money he skimmed in a tax evasion scheme, and failing to include his winnings in the affidavit for search warrant isn\u2019t material or reckless. There was probable cause. United States v. Suliman, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4446 (D. Nev. January 13, 2014).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading