The affiant officer\u2019s merely identifying the premises as the residence of the defendant didn\u2019t create standing. Defendant still had to show it. When the search warrant was executed, defendant wasn\u2019t found there, but the codefendants were. United States v. Morris, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179337 (E.D. Wis. December 16, 2014).<\/p>\n
The search warrant for child pornography was not overbroad. United States v. Mercer, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1215 (W.D. Okla. January 7, 2015).*<\/p>\n
\u201c[T]he IRS has met its burden by presenting evidence through its Verified Petition that the Summons was issued for a legitimate purpose, that the information sought may be relevant to that purpose; that the summoned information is not already in possession of the IRS; and that the proper administrative steps have been followed. Respondent has submitted no evidence to refute these facts.\u201d United States v. Aggarwal, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179606 (N.D. Cal. November 14, 2014).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The affiant officer\u2019s merely identifying the premises as the residence of the defendant didn\u2019t create standing. Defendant still had to show it. When the search warrant was executed, defendant wasn\u2019t found there, but the codefendants were. United States v. Morris, … Continue reading