Defendant\u2019s cell phone was properly seized incident to his arrest. It was later searched with \u201csearch warrant 1.\u201d When the defense filed a motion to suppress, the government got \u201csearch warrant 2\u201d which was legally sufficient. United States v. Bailey, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78445 (E.D. Mich. May 9, 2018).<\/p>\n
The affidavit showed reason for crediting the CI\u2019s statement. \u201cAssuming arguendo that one of the statements [for the search warrant] was false, the Defendant has failed to show that any misstatement was made intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth.\u201d United States v. Alvarez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76849 (W.D. Tex. May 7, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s cell phone was properly seized incident to his arrest. It was later searched with \u201csearch warrant 1.\u201d When the defense filed a motion to suppress, the government got \u201csearch warrant 2\u201d which was legally sufficient. United States v. Bailey, … Continue reading