USPO did not violate separation of powers by initiating federal PV after conducting a probation search. United States v. Simmonds, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104015 (N.D. N.Y. November 9, 2009):<\/p>\n
For similar reasons, the Court also finds that the USPO did not exceed its constitutional authority. Defendant contends that prosecuting crimes is within the sole province of the executive branch, that it is outside the scope of the judiciary to institute new criminal proceedings, and the instant matter blurs the roles of each branch because “if the probationer feared that information candidly shared with Probation was going to form the basis of a separate criminal prosecution, the probationer would have no incentive to honestly participate in his own recovery. … [and] limiting criminal investigations and the initiation of criminal proceedings to the executive assures that the constitutional rights of a probationer … are guarded through the well-established rules of criminal procedure ….”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The police finding defendant\u2019s car parked in another person\u2019s garage does not give him standing to challenge a search of the garage because it shows nothing about a property or possessory interest in the garage. United States v. Suarez-Blanca, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111623 (N.D. Ga. January 22, 2008) (USMJ R&R)<\/p>\n
Government\u2019s failure to timely raise defendants\u2019 standing to contest historical cellphone number seizure was a waiver under Steagald<\/a>. United States v. Suarez-Blanca, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111622 (N.D. Ga. March 26, 2008) (USMJ R&R).<\/p>\n
There was sufficient evidence of ongoing conduct and a connection to defendant\u2019s home for there to be probable cause. United States v. Maricle, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103418 (E.D. Ky. October 15, 2009).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading