It was ambiguous whether the images that officers believed were on defendant\u2019s computer qualified as child pornography, but the question for probable cause is reason to believe and not sufficient evidence to convict. Even so, the good faith exception applies. United States v. Giddens, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218453 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 29, 2019),* adopted, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217676 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 18, 2019).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s CSLI was obtained eight years before Carpenter. His counsel can\u2019t be faulted for not predicting Carpenter. Aside from failing to show deficient performance, defendant can\u2019t show prejudice either. Baker v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218411 (D. N.J. Dec. 18, 2019).*<\/p>\n
There was probable cause for defendant\u2019s seizure after an accident with erratic driving and the odor of alcohol. The decision below didn\u2019t have the benefit of later decisions on exigency for dispensing with a warrant for the blood draw (since it took two years just to appeal from the state court of appeals to the supreme court) and the case is remanded for further consideration of that. State v. Chavez-Majors<\/a>, 2019 Kan. LEXIS 351 (Dec. 20, 2019).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" It was ambiguous whether the images that officers believed were on defendant\u2019s computer qualified as child pornography, but the question for probable cause is reason to believe and not sufficient evidence to convict. Even so, the good faith exception applies. … Continue reading