The government did not exceed the scope of a search warrant for defendant’s computer for child pornography by looking at files that were not obviously child porn by their names. \u201cAs an initial matter, Defendant’s brief contains no citation to any legal authority whatsoever. Accordingly, it is not clear what legal grounds Defendant has for his motion or his theory concerning the Government’s search and seizure of his computers and storage devices.\u201d United States v. Ogden, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93489 (W.D. Tenn. November 18, 2008).*<\/p>\n
Defendant’s consent was not free, and the remainder of the search flowing from it was barred under Wong Sun.<\/a> United States v. Singleton, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93134 (W.D. N.Y. November 12, 2008).*<\/p>\n Defendant\u2019s swerving was reason enough for a stop that the defendant might have been falling asleep while driving. United States v. Triska, 574 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (D. Kan. 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading