Defendant had standing in the common areas of a pleasure craft the same as joint users have in a hotel room. However, he effectively abandoned the boat after the first search and gave up his reasonable expectation of privacy. United States v. Franki-Irizarry, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125722 (D. P.R. August 21, 2009).*<\/p>\n
While prosecutors only have qualified immunity for investigative functions, issuing subpoenas for third party held information did not violate plaintiff\u2019s Fourth Amendment rights, so they prevail. Rehberg v. Paulk<\/a>, 598 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 2010).*<\/p>\n Officers had probable cause to arrest defendant for a felony, and her search incident was justified. United States v. Bell, 692 F. Supp. 2d 606 (W.D. Va. 2010).*<\/p>\n Defendant was handcuffed when he was stopped, but, on the totality of circumstances, his consent was valid. United States v. Coppedge, 369 Fed. Appx. 338 (3d Cir. 2010) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading