Consent was valid, and third party\u2019s (co-defendant\u2019s) assistance in the search helps show voluntariness. United States v. Carlson, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15106 (D. Neb. January 21, 2010), R&R adopted, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15105 (D. Neb. February 22, 2010);* companion case of the consenter: United States v. Wiese, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15107 (D. Neb. January 21, 2010), R&R adopted, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15109 (D. Neb. February 22, 2010).* [This is a proposition that I can\u2019t agree with because the person may be trying to prevent needless rummaging or destruction of property. This is fact intensive, and the consenter should testify to this at the suppression hearing to at least seek to show that this \u201ccooperation\u201d was not really consent.]<\/p>\n
Police entry onto open fields did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The property found was 500′ from the house and there even was a regularly used easement in between. United States v. Young, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15103 (S.D. W.Va. February 22, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Traffic stop was validly based on having GPS attached to windshield. United States v. Geary, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15309 (D. Iowa February 22, 2010).* [Since all non-built-in GPS devices are sold with these brackets, police now have a new excuse to stop anyone.]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading