This defendant had no standing in the condo that was searched under a search warrant. He produced nothing to show that he had any connection to the property or was a guest with a connection to the premises, even an overnight guest. He was just an innocent bystander by his own admission [trying to distance himself from the drugs and cash]. He had standing in the cell phones taken off his person. There was probable cause for the search warrant, and it wasn\u2019t stale. The seller of the drugs had a wiretap on his phone. United States v. Scott, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80576 (E.D. Mich. May 14, 2018),* reconsideration denied, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113218 (E.D. Mich. July 9, 2018).*<\/p>\n
Police received a Cybertip call that defendant was sex trafficking a 16 year old girl. \u201cGiven this information on how the two met, and in light of corroboration of almost every piece of information contained within the highly detailed anonymous tip, the HPD officer could reasonably rely upon the Cybertip information.\u201d United States v. Pelfrey, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80530 (S.D. W.Va. May 14, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
This defendant had no standing in the condo that was searched under a search warrant. He produced nothing to show that he had any connection to the property or was a guest with a connection to the premises, even an … Continue reading