The consent form here said that defendant was consenting to a search of his computer with a forensic program for child pornography images. After that inexplicably produced nothing, the officers asked for his password to open the computer, which he leaned over and typed. This was consent to enter the computer. The software then produced images. The consent was valid. United States v. McAteer, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13151 (D. N.J. February 16, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Arrest warrants for African elephant ivory smuggling were executed in New Jersey shortly after 6 a.m., and a protective sweep occurred just after the consent forms were being signed. The consent was found valid. United States v. Sylla, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13056 (E.D. N.Y. February 16, 2010)<\/p>\n
The officer had reasonable suspicion to detain the defendants based on the car matching a car seen in a convenience store surveillance video leaving the scene of a shooting on the parking lot the night before. United States v. Perez, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12890 (D. Kan. February 12, 2010).*<\/p>\n
The subjective motivations for a stop are irrelevant, if it otherwise is valid. Appellant\u2019s contention is \u201cbetter directed to the Supreme Court\u201d which has repeatedly upheld this doctrine. United States v. Taylor<\/a>, 596 F.3d 373 (7th Cir. 2010).*<\/p>\n The search warrant was supported by ample probable cause. United States v. Mendez-Argueta, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12953 (E.D. Va. February 12, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading