Defendant who did not live in the house searched had no standing to challenge the search of the place. He kept stuff there and he had a longstanding relationship with those who lived there, but it wasn\u2019t his place, so no standing. United States v. Tamborello, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71313 (N.D. Iowa July 15, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s IAC claim fails that defense counsel did not move to dismiss the case because the officers allegedly lied to him during the search. Even if the issue was challenged as a suppression motion, defendant would not have prevailed, so defense counsel had no basis for moving to suppress. Philson v. United States, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70896 (E.D. N.C. July 13, 2010).*<\/p>\n
The affidavit for the search warrant for child pornography on defendant\u2019s computer was issued with probable cause. A detailed description of the alleged child pornography is not required as it is with adult pornography because of the lack of First Amendment protection. United States v. Werlein, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70725 (D. Minn. June 24, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s stop was because of a license plate light. When he got to the driver\u2019s window, he noticed the strong odor of air freshener, the passenger window would not go down, and they had unusual travel plans. This was reasonable suspicion to keep talking. United States v. Collins, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70334 (E.D. Tex. June 21, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading