In response to defendant\u2019s motion to suppress, the government argued search incident, which the defense didn\u2019t rebut in the papers. Motion denied in part. Defendant’s cell phone seizure is suppressed, however, because the government didn’t show justification for its seizure. United States v. Walters, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43690 (D. Conn. Mar. 9, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant failed in his Franks offer of proof. \u201cThe unsworn testimony of the alleged informant’s husband does not cause us to discount Detective McGee’s sworn testimony that he interviewed the informant.\u201d United States v. Boyle<\/a>, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 6772 (3d Cir. Mar. 9, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe Court finds that the [informant hearsay] supporting the Warrant was not stale because the CI’s statements suggested that Defendant’s criminal activity was ongoing.\u201d United States v. Windom, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43626 (D. Colo. Mar, 9, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In response to defendant\u2019s motion to suppress, the government argued search incident, which the defense didn\u2019t rebut in the papers. Motion denied in part. Defendant’s cell phone seizure is suppressed, however, because the government didn’t show justification for its seizure. … Continue reading