Defendant had a relationship with the property of another but he didn\u2019t spend the night. He could come and go. That was sufficient for standing. The co-defendant\u2019s case, however, already found probable cause. United States v. Futrell, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219209 (E.D.Mo. Oct. 21, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The search warrant was executed shortly after 6 am and did not violate the terms of the warrant. The officers testified they were aware of the time limitation and adhered to it. Defendant\u2019s Franks and probable cause challenges also fail. United States v. Eddings, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218796 (W.D.Pa. Nov. 12, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s speeding 57 in a 35 was a basis for his stop. United States v. Holt, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218847 (D.Conn. Nov. 12, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant had a relationship with the property of another but he didn\u2019t spend the night. He could come and go. That was sufficient for standing. The co-defendant\u2019s case, however, already found probable cause. United States v. Futrell, 2021 U.S. Dist. … Continue reading