There was probable cause shown by the 16 page affidavit for search warrant. Potential issues of chain of custody are not an issue for a motion to suppress. That\u2019s an issue for trial. United States v. Williams, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89106 (W.D. Tenn. July 1, 2014).<\/p>\n
Virtually the same: State v. Felts<\/a>, 2014 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 626 (June 25, 2014) (that stolen property was returned to the victims is not a ground to suppress the search).<\/p>\n Even hitting the fog line once is reasonable suspicion for a stop. The USMJ\u2019s findings of consent, adopted by the district court, are not clearly erroneous. United States v. Salas<\/a>, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12387 (10th Cir. July 1, 2014).*<\/p>\n \u201cBecause the Court finds that AOL and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (\u2018NCMEC\u2019), the parties who searched Defendant’s emails, are not state actors, the Fourth Amendment is inapplicable to their conduct in this case.\u201d United States v. Ackerman<\/a>, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89243 (D. Kan. July 1, 2014).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" There was probable cause shown by the 16 page affidavit for search warrant. Potential issues of chain of custody are not an issue for a motion to suppress. That\u2019s an issue for trial. United States v. Williams, 2014 U.S. Dist. … Continue reading