\u201cThe underlying facts in the affidavit compare the actions of Tualua with the actions of the people who committed the prior EZ Pawn robberies, which would allow the issuing judge to make his or her own conclusions. Under the totality of the circumstances in the affidavit, such as the fact that all the targets were EZ Pawns and involved sledgehammers, and Tualua used a sledgehammer to smash jewelry cases, there was a fair probability that a DNA-swab would show that Tualua’s DNA would be recovered in connection with the prior robberies. The issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed to issue the warrant. The Court recommends denying Tualua’s motion to suppress.\u201d United States v. Goldsby, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30252 (D. Nev. Jan. 13, 2020),* adopted, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28502 (D. Nev. Feb. 19, 2020).*<\/p>\n
\u201cBecause defendant Hood has failed to even attempt to demonstrate that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the parcels that were the subject of a seizure on February 12, 2015 by claiming ownership of them or otherwise, his motion to suppress the fruits of that search must be denied.\u201d There was also a Franks challenge that failed for a \u201csubstantial preliminary showing\u201d of falsity or materiality. United States v. Hood, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30342 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2020).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cThe underlying facts in the affidavit compare the actions of Tualua with the actions of the people who committed the prior EZ Pawn robberies, which would allow the issuing judge to make his or her own conclusions. Under the totality … Continue reading