Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his third party information with his internet service provider, so the validity of the administrative subpoena isn\u2019t an issue under circuit precedent. The fact that state law was used by state investigators isn\u2019t even an issue in federal court. United States v. Martinka, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91175 (D.Minn. June 4, 2015).*<\/p>\n
Defendant was an Ohio parolee, and officers received information that guns were going into and out of his place. They came to search, and defendant granted consent. They didn\u2019t say why they were there, but this was not a misrepresentation that nullified consent. Also, the fact defendant was handcuffed and frisked before consent did not make it involuntary. United States v. Lee<\/a>, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12151 (6th Cir. July 15, 2015).*<\/p>\n Defense counsel filed a motion to suppress DNA on a bank robber\u2019s mask, but he didn\u2019t raise all the arguments defendant does in his 2255, one of which was a Franks challenge to the affidavit for search warrant. None of this qualifies as newly discovered evidence sufficient to overcome procedural default. Hindman v. United States, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91816 (N.D.Ala. July 15, 2015).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his third party information with his internet service provider, so the validity of the administrative subpoena isn\u2019t an issue under circuit precedent. The fact that state law was used by state investigators … Continue reading