\u201cMotions to suppress evidence are appropriate in civil forfeiture proceedings because the seizure and subsequent civil forfeiture of assets implicates the Fourth Amendment. Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693, 702 (1965) (holding that the Fourth Amendment is applicable to civil forfeiture proceedings) ….\u201d Here, however, there was probable cause for the search warrant. United States v. $389,820 in United States Currency, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87534 (M.D. Ala. May 24, 2019).*<\/p>\n
Defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress the child pornography found on his computer. \u201cThe six-month gap between the transmission of child pornography and the execution of the search warrant doesn’t raise a staleness issue.\u201d Johnson v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86927 (N.D. Ind. May 23, 2019).*<\/p>\n
The search warrant for defendant\u2019s cell phone was issued with probable cause, and it was also not overbroad. United States v. Wills, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87741 (S.D Tex. May 24, 2019).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cMotions to suppress evidence are appropriate in civil forfeiture proceedings because the seizure and subsequent civil forfeiture of assets implicates the Fourth Amendment. Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693, 702 (1965) (holding that the Fourth Amendment is applicable to … Continue reading