While executing a drug search warrant, the police removed a cabinet from the wall of defendant\u2019s place and they found a gun hidden there. That qualified for plain view. The place searched was a place where drugs could have been hidden. United States v. Ryerson, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21237 (E.D. Tenn. February 12, 2010).*<\/p>\n
None of the defendants driving or riding in the CI\u2019s car had standing to challenge its search. United States v. Pete, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21907 (W.D. Pa. March 10, 2010). [Perfect: Get the target of the search to drive the CI\u2019s car while carrying the dope, and then he lacks all standing. I\u2019ve actually seen this before.]<\/p>\n
Arrest of the defendant and removal of him from the scene was not shown to be an effort to avoid the defendant\u2019s ability to veto consent under Randolph. United States v. Ramirez, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21065 (S.D. Fla. February 4, 2010) (USMJ R&R), adopted 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21067 (S.D. Fla. March 9, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Not a Fourth Amendment case, but a reasonable expectation of privacy case is State v. Perez<\/a>, 779 N.W.2d 105 (Minn. App. 2010),* where defendant was convicted of surreptitiously videotaping his wife in the nude when they married but getting separated. Even a married person has a reasonable expectation of privacy as to her spouse. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading