Defendant was a co-defendant with Schultz, a chiropractor, charged with false insurance claims. \u201cThe Court concludes that Defendant Hassan does not have standing to challenge the evidence obtained from Defendant Schulz because Defendant Hassan did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in Defendant Schulz’s documents, clinic, or phone.\u201d United States v. Schulz, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41167 (D. Minn. Feb. 8, 2018).<\/p>\n
Even if the omitted evidence had been included, probable cause would still exist, and the search warrant still would have issued. Therefore, no Franks violation. United States v. Thompson, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42629 (E.D. La. Mar. 15, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant was a co-defendant with Schultz, a chiropractor, charged with false insurance claims. \u201cThe Court concludes that Defendant Hassan does not have standing to challenge the evidence obtained from Defendant Schulz because Defendant Hassan did not have a reasonable expectation … Continue reading