Defense counsel is obligated to provide a legal and factual basis for a suppression motion. While this one is considered on the merits, the court will not do it in the future. Defendant’s statements when he saw the police (“Oh, shit. It’s 5-0. Fuck! It’s 5-0,” [after altercation with officer: “[g]o get the gun. We’ll handle this”) provided exigent circumstances for an entry for officer safety. United States v. Edwards, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49192 (D. Minn. June 13, 2008):<\/p>\n
Thus, as to those motions to suppress that defendant failed to produce evidence and argument to support the motion, this Court recommends denying those motions on that basis alone. However, in an abundance of caution, but with no understanding of the basis for each such motion, this Court has gone ahead and addressed the merits of that motion. Defendant’s counsel is on notice that in the future, this Court will not countenance the filing and pursuit of motions without factual and legal support, and it will not hesitate to recommend denial of such motions on that basis alone. That said, this Court now proceeds to address the merits of each one of defendant’s motions.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Defendant was alleged to have used disposable cellphones. A search warrant for the contents of a cellphone that was five days old in its statement of information was not stale because it was designed to get potential information about a specific telephone call made to it. United States v. Guerrero, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49518 (D. Kan. June 24, 2008).*<\/p>\n
Length of time defendant was held before consent was granted was not determinative. United States v. McIntyre, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49442 (N.D. Ohio June 27, 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading