{"id":3569,"date":"2010-05-16T20:06:16","date_gmt":"2009-11-27T08:26:23","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-11-27T08:26:23","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3569","title":{"rendered":"S.D.Ga.: Use of an ICE summons for cell records which resulted in a SW was not unreasonable"},"content":{"rendered":"

The use of a Customs summons to gather records and information which was later used for a search warrant did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Defendant had no privacy interest in his records as a mere cellphone subscriber under Smith v. Maryland<\/a>. United States v. Cray, 673 F. Supp. 2d 1368 (S.D. Ga. 2009).*<\/p>\n

\u201cHe contends that the gun and cap were fruits of an illegal search, or perhaps more accurately, fruits of an illegal seizure. In either case, however, the Court concludes that the evidence was lawfully discovered. Under California v. Hodari D.<\/a>, 499 U.S. 621, 111 S. Ct. 1547, 113 L. Ed. 2d 690 (1991), the police did not need reasonable suspicion to pursue the fleeing Watkins. Only when Watkins was \u2018seized,\u2019 that is, when Watkins submitted to the officers’ show of authority, was reasonable suspicion required. By that time, Watkins’s actions gave the officers sufficient suspicion to seize him as an initial matter, and post-seizure, Watkins’ words — \u2018I got weed\u2019 — gave the officers probable cause to arrest him. Incident to the lawful arrest, the officers’ subsequent search of Watkins’ backpack was proper, and therefore so too was the ultimate discovery of the evidence. Accordingly, the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress (document # 11) is DENIED.\u201d United States v. Watkins, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109406 (D. Mass. November 10, 2009).*<\/p>\n

In a child porn case, information that was over four years old coupled with purchases only seven months before the SW was sought were not stale. It is the nature of possession of child pornography. Describing the website defendant visited as a \u201cknown child pornography site\u201d was not inappropriate or conclusory, even though the website had only a small percentage of child pornography, compared to the whole. United States v. Roller, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109633 (N.D. Cal. November 6, 2009).*<\/p>\n

The court concludes, on the credibility of the witnesses that a search incident did not occur before the dog alerted on the car. United States v. Sharp, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109717 (E.D. Tenn. October 21, 2009).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3569","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3569","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3569"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3569\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3569"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3569"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3569"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}