Defendant had no standing to challenge a search of a cell phone found in his car that he said belonged to his girlfriend. \u201cJackson does not deny that he disclaimed ownership of the phone at the time it was seized. Jackson did not claim the phone as his until he became aware that \u2018Ro\u2019 was calling the phone. Jackson lacks standing to challenge the seizure of the phone.\u201d Defendant consented to seizure and search of another phone knowing that the search would take a couple of days, which it did. United States v. Jackson, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81132 (E.D. Mich. May 15, 2018).<\/p>\n
Three months in a child porn case wasn\u2019t stale \u201cunder the unique facts\u201d here [which really doesn\u2019t matter]. As to defendant\u2019s Franks claim, \u201cthe Court cannot possibly find that probable cause would be lacking in the affidavit if any of the above-specified omitted facts had been included. Although they may be facts of interest to Defendant, they are not facts material to a finding of probable cause.\u201d United States v. Findley, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82605 (S.D. Fla. May 16, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant had no standing to challenge a search of a cell phone found in his car that he said belonged to his girlfriend. \u201cJackson does not deny that he disclaimed ownership of the phone at the time it was seized. … Continue reading