Search warrant in a money laundering case permitted the officers to look at documents involving businesses located on the premises not specifically named in the warrant. The affidavit and warrant contemplated that other businesses would be involved. “Since the warrant does not expressly name the third company involved in the scheme, the agents reasonably inferred that it was permissible to search the records for companies not expressly listed in the warrant, provided that these companies were connected to the alleged MBE fraud.” United States v. Catapano, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70460 (E.D. N.Y. August 26, 2008).<\/p>\n
Consenter who lived with defendant for a year with their infant daughter could consent to a search of the premises. Defendant was concerned that she might consent when he was in jail, but he didn’t do anything to revoke her authority since she was in control of the property. United States v. Ryerson<\/a>, 545 F.3d 483 (7th Cir. 2008).*<\/p>\n District court’s finding of consent was supported by the evidence and affirmed. United States v. Fristoe<\/a>, 315 Fed. Appx. 40 (10th Cir. 2008) (unpublished)*; United States v. Mendoza, 293 Fed. Appx. 290 (5th Cir. 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading