More was shown than just that defendant was a drug dealer. He was the driver for a man who regularly did drug deals and he watched them all go down. He was seen leaving a house attributed to him in a car belonging to somebody else. A trash pull showed evidence of drug trafficking going on there. This was enough for nexus. United States v. Johnson, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38362 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 8, 2018).<\/p>\n
The government says it won\u2019t use the product of a pen register against the defendant, so it\u2019s moot. The defendant\u2019s statutory claim on the merits would fail: \u201cThe Court finds that defendant has no basis to challenge the admissibility of the pen register data under federal law, because the use of a pen register or trap and trace device is not a search under the Fourth Amendment.\u201d United States v. Tate, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38658 (N.D. Okla. Mar. 9, 2018).*<\/p>\n
Another Playpen warrant sustained. United States v. Stamper, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38689 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 9, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
More was shown than just that defendant was a drug dealer. He was the driver for a man who regularly did drug deals and he watched them all go down. He was seen leaving a house attributed to him in … Continue reading