The officers executing a search warrant came upon papers during execution of a search warrant with website addresses and \u201clolita\u201d and \u201cboys\u201d along with pictures of nude boys. This was plain view because the warrant was valid. United States v. Clark, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115048 (D. Me. October 27, 2010)*:<\/p>\n
A defendant bears the burden of proving the illegality of a warrant; if he succeeds, the burden shifts to the government to prove entitlement to the Leon good-faith exception. See, e.g., United States v. Longmire<\/a>, 761 F.2d 411, 417 (7th Cir. 1985) (\u201cThe general federal rule on who bears the burden of proof with respect to an allegedly illegal search or seizure is based upon the warrant-no warrant dichotomy: If the search or seizure was effected pursuant to a warrant, the defendant bears the burden of proving its illegality; if the police acted without a warrant, the prosecution bears the burden of establishing legality.\u201d); see also, e.g., United States v. Koerth<\/a>, 312 F.3d 862, 868 (7th Cir. 2002) (\u201cIf a defendant is successful in establishing the invalidity of the search warrant, the burden then shifts to the Government to establish that the police relied in good faith on the judge’s decision to accept the affidavit and issue the warrant.\u201d).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Defendant\u2019s 2255 fails on all grounds, including the Fourth Amendment claim, because the defendant did not show that the Fourth Amendment claim could remotely succeed. His factual scenario was contrary to everything already in the record. United States v. Nichols, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114949 (D. Kan. October 28, 2010).*<\/p>\n
The video of the stop shows that the defendant verbally consented to the search of his vehicle. United States v. Griffith, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114960 (D. S.C. October 28, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading