Defendant filed a motion to reopen the suppression hearing with an expert report that his signature on the consent form had been forged. After the expert reviewed the government\u2019s expert\u2019s report, the opinion was changed to \u201cit\u2019s ambiguous.\u201d In light of this, the court declines to reopen. United States v. Pittman, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22218 (M.D. Tenn. February 20, 2014).<\/p>\n
The subpoena for email addresses responding to a Craigslist account did not ask for the emails themselves, and they were reasonable. There was no reasonable expectation of privacy in that information. A search warrant then issued with probable cause for the email address that the government concluded was involved with child pornography. United States v. Rudtke, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22159 (S.D. Cal. February 20, 2014).*<\/p>\n
Defense counsel refused to advance the meritless Franks argument defendant advances in his 2255 because there was no bearing on materiality of the probable cause at all. Therefore, no IAC. United States v. Scaife, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22119 (E.D. Va. February 20, 2014).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading