It was reasonable for the USMJ to conclude that there was a nexus between defendant\u2019s grow operation and his car and his house. He had to get to the grow operation somehow. United States v. Danielson, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107257 (D. V.I. November 17, 2009).*<\/p>\n
Defendant driving someone else\u2019s truck with permission had standing, and the videotape helped support it. United States v. Sanchez, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106954 (D. Kan. November 16, 2009).*<\/p>\n
Defense counsel was not ineffective for not challenging the search warrant on state law grounds in a federal case since it was irrelevant under the Fourth Amendment. Norman v. United States, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106898 (M.D. Ala. October 21, 2009).*<\/p>\n
There was probable cause for defendant\u2019s arrest, and the search of his backpack was justified as a search incident. He was also seen ditching something as he ran while holding the backpack. United States v. Watkins, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106855 (D. Mass. November 17, 2009).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading