Defendant who admittedly only carried a duffle bag into an apartment and expected to stay only 20-45 minutes, where he did not live, would not stay, and had no key or belongings there, had no standing to contest a search of the premises. United States v. Mitchell, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105594 (M.D. Pa. October 4, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Officers had probable cause to believe that the defendant\u2019s truck to which 200 lbs of marijuana had been transferred had evidence of crime, so Gant did not apply. United States v. Micali, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105386 (E.D. N.Y. September 29, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Defendant was sleeping like a homeless man in a private parking garage. When he was rousted and fled, he left some stuff including a laptop computer, anti-Israeli literature (similar comments were on his Facebook page), and bottle that was capable of being a small bomb based on its contents. A search warrant was issued for the computer [aside from the abandonment issue which isn\u2019t discussed], and the court concludes the search warrant for evidence of terrorist activities is specific enough. His claim that he was entitled to possess the anti-Israeli literature under the First Amendment was not at all determinative of the outcome. Moreover, the showing of PC was close enough that the good faith exception would apply. United States v. McNamara-Harvey, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106141 (E.D. Pa. October 5, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading