A cellphone can be searched incident to an arrest. Disclaimer of ownership of a cellphone after it was searched is not an abandonment. United States v. Curry, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5438 (D. Me. January 23, 2008).<\/p>\n
Defendant did not have standing to challenge the search of the car of a friend of his when it was stopped and he was a passenger. United States v. Watson, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5345 (W.D. Wis. January 22, 2008).*<\/p>\n
“Martin’s statement to the police officer that ‘we’ need to go into the house to recover the rifle that Martin had fired was sufficient to ground an inference of consent.” United States v. Martin, 264 Fed. Appx. 612 (9th Cir. 2008) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n
Exclusionary rule in Ohio does not apply to civil cases. Slough v. Lucas County Sheriff<\/a>, 2008 Ohio 243, 174 Ohio App. 3d 488, 882 N.E.2d 952 (6th Dist. 2008).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading