The householder here consented by his actions to police entry to search for defendant. \u201cRegardless of who is deemed more credible, Marshall admits that, after he told the officers that OJ was not there, he unlocked the screen door and pushed it open to let the officers in. Based on this admission, the Court finds that Marshall unequivocally and specifically consented to the search, if not expressly, then at least impliedly. See United States v. Gamez, 389 F. Supp. 2d 975, 979 (S.D. Ohio 2005) (noting that consent to search \u2018may be in the form of words, gesture or conduct.;).\u201d United States v. Marshall, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37780 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 9, 2019).*<\/p>\n
\u201cThe claim herein is that the Defendant, a live-in guest of his father, has a privacy interest in his father’s financial decision to obtain internet service because it is \u2018indispensable to participation in modern society\u2019.\u201d There still is no reasonable expectation of privacy in it. United States v. McCutchin, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37499 (D. Ariz. Mar. 8, 2019).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The householder here consented by his actions to police entry to search for defendant. \u201cRegardless of who is deemed more credible, Marshall admits that, after he told the officers that OJ was not there, he unlocked the screen door and … Continue reading