Police officers entered the curtilage going to defendant\u2019s side yard. They did not, however, unconstitutionally cause his abandonment of the package of drugs that he was expecting by his denials that he was receiving any package. Defendant also was talked into unlocking his cell phone to show text messages. The government\u2019s burden here is higher because they were on the curtilage, but the court still finds that his opening the phone and showing text messages was by consent. On consent to search defendant\u2019s home, the court credits the officers\u2019 version and finds it voluntary. United States v. Do, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147904 (N.D. Okla. October 17, 2014).*<\/p>\n
The search warrant was for 137 but also mentioned 117 was on the building. It was actually 117, and the warrant was particular enough. State v. Powell<\/a>, 2014 La. App. LEXIS 2496 (La.App. 4 Cir. October 15, 2014).*<\/p>\n Failure to renew a motion to suppress when the evidence is offered is a waiver. State v. Tharp<\/a>, 22 Neb. App. 454. 2014 Neb. App. LEXIS 165 (October 14, 2014).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Police officers entered the curtilage going to defendant\u2019s side yard. They did not, however, unconstitutionally cause his abandonment of the package of drugs that he was expecting by his denials that he was receiving any package. Defendant also was talked … Continue reading