The evidence showed that defendant\u2019s wife did not have express authorization to consent to a search, so the government bore the burden of showing she had common authority, which it did. She shared the computer, it was located in a separate room they called the \u201ccomputer room,\u201d and her access was unlimited. United States v. Smith, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47553 (D. Ariz. April 19, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s furtive movements during her stop justified reasonable suspicion for a frisk. State v. Morgan<\/a>, 348 Ore. 283, 230 P.3d 928 (2010).*\t\t\t<\/p>\n The record supports the conclusion that defendant\u2019s consent was voluntary. Defendant\u2019s own suppression testimony did not even touch on consent. United States v. Clark<\/a>, 377 Fed. Appx. 451, 2010 FED App. 0290N (6th Cir. 2010) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading