Defendant lacked standing to challenge the search of the apartment he was in because he had no connection to it. However, he could still challenge the search of his computer that was found there, which the government conceded. United States v. Scott, 673 F. Supp. 2d 331 (M.D. Pa. 2009):<\/p>\n
Although Scott lacks standing to challenge the seizure of property from the Rawleigh Street apartment, he is not foreclosed from contesting the subsequent search of his Dell 1501 laptop computer by the Cumberland County Forensics Unit. Scott clearly possessed a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of what the government acknowledges is his personal property. Furthermore, the government concedes that it did not obtain a warrant to search the contents of the computer, and offers no justification for not doing so. Perhaps as a consequence of this oversight, the government does not contest Scott’s motion to suppress the fruits of the laptop computer search. (See Doc. 194 at 14.) Accordingly, the contents of the computer will be suppressed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
A power line easement was not a part of the curtilage under Dunn<\/a>. [Rather than simply find it was not, the parties tried this issue and the court made detailed findings.] United States v. Rey, 663 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (D. N.M. 2009).*<\/p>\n
The presence of a shotgun carried into the house in a shots fired call justified the entry under the emergency doctrine. The search for the gun was also justified as a protective sweep. United States v. Parrott, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109002 (E.D. Pa. November 20, 2009).*<\/p>\n
Defendant tossed his gun while fleeing, and this was like Hodari D.<\/a> and there was no seizure because of his flight. United States v. Grant, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108874 (E.D. Pa. November 19, 2009).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading