The search incident of defendant\u2019s cell phone was shown to be with exigent circumstances because the government showed a risk of the phone losing its data before a warrant could be obtained, including remote \u201cwiping\u201d of the phone. United States v. Salgado, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77266 (N.D. Ga. June 15, 2010)* (surveying the case law). [I think that the cases are too deferential of exigence, like Belton, and this situation cries out for real litigation.]<\/p>\n
The stop of defendant\u2019s vehicle was an investigative stop for threatening a woman with a gun and a baseball bat. Defendant was likely under the influence, so the stop was with reasonable suspicion. United States v. Camacho, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129373 (D. Neb. June 24, 2009).*<\/p>\n
Defendant was a mere trespasser, so he had no standing in a wooden shack he was staying in. The facts were in dispute. \u201cDefendant has not established that his subjective expectation of privacy in the wooden structure and its curtilage is one \u2018that society recognizes as legitimate.\u2019\u201d United States v. Murray, 53 V.I. 831, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77954 (D. V.I. August 2, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s probation and parole search was justified by complaints from the neighbors that he was drug dealing from his house. United States v. Strike, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78127 (D. Mont. August 2, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading