\u201cStanding\u201d is a close question, but, assuming defendant had it, the search was lawful as by consent, which defendant did not have to have an ability to limit because he was positioned so he could not see it happen. United States v. Jimenez-Valenia, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37911 (D. Utah May 1, 2009):<\/p>\n
[T]he Tenth Circuit would prefer courts “‘not use the term ‘standing’ as shorthand for a defendant’s capacity to challenge a search,'” the court does so here for clarity. United States v. Smith, 531 F.3d 1261, 1266 n. 2 (10th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Higgins, 282 F.3d 1261, 1270 n.3 (10th Cir. 2002)). This is the term used by the United States, Mr. Jimenez-Valencia and a great deal of the relevant case law. E.g., United States v. Worthon, 520 F.3d 1173, 1177-78 (10th Cir. 2008).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
“The lawfulness of the search and seizure is not determinative of Smith’s right to return of the property under Rule 41(g).” United States v. Smith<\/a>, 329 Fed. Appx. 682 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).*<\/p>\n
Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the VINs on stolen vehicles on a trailer she was pulling. Defendant\u2019s pat search on booking was reasonable. She had no reasonable expectation of privacy that the police would not fly over her property and photograph it. United States v. Bain, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37935 (D. Neb. May 5, 2009).*<\/p>\n
Even if defendant could reopen his suppression hearing and guilty plea after Gant was decided, this was not a search incident under Gant<\/a>. It was a Terry<\/a> patdown based on reasonable suspicion. United States v. Kieckbusch, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37928 (E.D. Wis. May 4, 2009).*<\/p>\n
When asked about the contents of the car, defendant said that the car was not his. This amounts to a waiver of standing. United States v. Dickerson, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38195 (N.D. Ohio April 28, 2009).* <\/p>\n
When asked about a locked box in a car, defendant said the box was not hers. This is a waiver of standing. United States v. Morgan, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38611 (W.D. Va. April 30, 2009).*<\/p>\n
Defense counsel was not ineffective for not filing a [completely] meritless motion to suppress a trash search at the curb. United States v. Myers, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37963 (D. S.C. April 14, 2009).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading