By the time claimant withdrew his consent, the officer had probable cause to believe evidence of likely crime was in the vehicle, and that independently supported the search. United States v. $57,610.00 in United States Currency, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47116 (D. Neb. May 13, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s claim that he was arrested without the officer\u2019s identifying himself was unsupported by the record, even if it would have provided a ground for relief. State v. Dewitt<\/a>, 2010 Iowa App. LEXIS 375 (May 12, 2010).*<\/p>\n \u201c[T]he defendant had neither an actual, subjective expectation of privacy nor an objective expectation of privacy in the recorded conversations\u201d from the jail. He argued for a reduced, but reasonable, expectation of privacy, but failed. State v. Hill<\/a>, 333 S.W.3d 106 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading