The government didn\u2019t even show a connection between the defendant and the alleged crime to get access to his subscriber information. \u201cWhile courts may find the good-faith exception to apply when an application is \u2018thin,\u2019 a showing of some connection between the information sought and criminal investigation is required. See e.g. United States v. Wright, 339 F. Supp. 3d 1057, 1062 (D. Nev. 2018) (thin factual summary showed the connection between defendant and the phone number known as co-defendant’s before, during, and after a robbery). Here, the application fails to meet even that low bar. The Court agrees with the magistrate judge that \u2018[t]he good-faith exception does not apply because the supporting affidavit was so lacking that is was unreasonable for the agents to rely on the order stemming from it.\u2019 R&R (Doc. 115, p. 5).\u201d Motion to suppress granted. United States v. Moreno-Vasquez, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42047 (D. Ariz. Mar. 10, 2020).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s calls from pretrial detention from Rikers Island Correctional Facility were properly admitted as probative of defendant\u2019s mental state, and it didn\u2019t violate the Fourth Amendment to do admit the calls. People v. Chunn<\/a>, 2020 NY Slip Op 01635, 2020 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1668 (2d Dept. Mar. 11, 2020).* The government didn\u2019t even show a connection between the defendant and the alleged crime to get access to his subscriber information. \u201cWhile courts may find the good-faith exception to apply when an application is \u2018thin,\u2019 a showing of some connection … Continue reading
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"