Pro se defendant who went to trial thinking he had to do so to preserve his computer search claim in a child porn case was still entitled to a two point reduction in his base offense level for acceptance of responsibility. It is apparent he told the truth at the suppression hearing. His argument that the government did not prove its case at trial did not prohibit his receiving acceptance. United States v. Burns, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100642 (N.D. Ill. October 27, 2009).<\/p>\n
The use of handcuffs during a Terry stop did not make it an arrest. The officer suspected others were involved, and he handcuffed the defendant for his own safety. United States v. Hersey, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100537 (N.D. Cal. October 14, 2009).*<\/p>\n
The evidence obtained for the PC for the SW adequately showed a marijuana grow operation. [Not even really close.] In any event, good faith would save it. United States v. Tran, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100357 (D. Minn. October 9, 2009) (USMJ R&R),* later opinion 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100335 (D. Minn. October 27, 2009).*<\/p>\n
There was sufficient nexus for a search warrant as to defendant where there was wiretap information that showed nexus between defendant and the place to be searched. United States v. Jefferson, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100645 (E.D. Wis. August 31, 2009).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading