The 2017 orders for real time CSLI didn\u2019t satisfy the timeliness requirement for probable cause, and they would be stale. However, back then, the circuit hadn\u2019t approached the holding in Carpenter at all, and the good faith exception would be applied. United States v. Robinson, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59385 (E.D. N.C. Mar. 5, 2020), adopted, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58038 (E.D. N.C. Apr. 2, 2020) (USMJ\u2019s opinion an excellent discussion of staleness and CSLI requests).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIn this case, Officer Spratt asked defendant, \u2018I just want to make sure you don’t got no weapons or nothing. Can you do me a favor? Can you put your hands behind your back so we can make sure our safety is fine.\u2019 Hr’g Tr. at 32. Defendant appeared to consent by first nodding his head, and then following the officer’s request to put his hands behind his back. Despite this appearance of acquiescence, defendant argues that any consent was not voluntary due to the coercive nature of the encounter. We note that lack of voluntariness was not raised in defendant’s motion to suppress, but it was argued briefly at his hearing and the district court addressed it in its ruling.\u201d This was on video. Moreover, the officer had reasonable suspicion for the patdown regardless of the consent. United States v. Wilson<\/a>, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 10622 (6th Cir. Apr. 3, 2020) (2-1).* The 2017 orders for real time CSLI didn\u2019t satisfy the timeliness requirement for probable cause, and they would be stale. However, back then, the circuit hadn\u2019t approached the holding in Carpenter at all, and the good faith exception would be … Continue reading
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"