A passenger who paid a friend $10 to ride in the car has no increased reasonable expectation of privacy for standing. \u201cDefendant’s arguments miss the mark. The key, guiding principle to a finding of standing in both Byrd and Jones was that the defendant possessed “complete dominion and control” over the place of the search.\u201d United States v. Mickens, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213144 (E.D.Mich. Nov. 4, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Pro se plaintiff\u2019s \u00a7 1983 complaint against an unreasonable failure to knock-and-announce survives initial screening under \u00a7 1915A. Hammond v. Acerno, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213243 (E.D.Pa. Nov. 4, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The stop of defendant\u2019s car was reasonable, and the search was at least supported by both the automobile exception and inventory. The taking of defendant\u2019s DNA was by consent. United States v. Moore, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213603 (D.Ore. Nov. 4, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A passenger who paid a friend $10 to ride in the car has no increased reasonable expectation of privacy for standing. \u201cDefendant’s arguments miss the mark. The key, guiding principle to a finding of standing in both Byrd and Jones … Continue reading