\u201cIn the Eighth Circuit, for the purposes of determining whether probable cause exists to search a computer [for child pornography], an IP address assigned to a specific user at the time illegal internet activity associated with that IP address occurs is a sufficient basis to find a nexus between the unlawful use of the internet at that IP address and a computer possessed by the subscriber assigned the address.\u201d United States v. Reibert, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9848 (D.Neb. January 27, 2015).*<\/p>\n
Defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for not challenging an \u201canytime\u201d state search warrant under state law when the case was indicted federally because a violation of state law doesn\u2019t translate into a federal violation. Danner v. United States, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181245 (N.D.Ala. December 29, 2014).*<\/p>\n
Defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for not appealing denial of the motion to suppress because, based on the whole record, including the trial, there was reasonable suspicion for the stop. State v. Goldsmith<\/a>, 2015-Ohio-261, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 220 (5th Dist. January 15, 2015).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u201cIn the Eighth Circuit, for the purposes of determining whether probable cause exists to search a computer [for child pornography], an IP address assigned to a specific user at the time illegal internet activity associated with that IP address occurs … Continue reading