Victim\u2019s representatives were reasonably permitted to participate in the search so they could identify what belonged to them so it could be seized. United States v. Chinasa, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6849 (E.D. Va. January 25, 2011).*<\/p>\n
The court credits that defendant consented to a search of both his car and his person. While the report says just the car, it was both. United States v. Lecraft, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140273 (E.D. N.C. October 7, 2010).*<\/p>\n
There was probable cause to arrest plaintiff for disorderly conduct, so judgment for the defendants. Wheeler v. Newell<\/a>, 407 Fed. Appx. 889, 2011 FED App. 0050N (6th Cir. 2011) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n Hearsay was admissible at the suppression hearing for the officer to testify to what he had heard from other officers to show that he had reason for defendant\u2019s stop. United States v. Santos, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6672 (D. Haw. January 21, 2011).*<\/p>\n Defendant was under investigation for possession of and acquiring child pornography. He arrived at SFO from Frankfurt, Germany, and his laptop was seized for search, and he admitted having child pornography on his computer. The seizure of his laptop and cell phone at Customs was valid as a border search. United States v. Kyle, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6791 (N.D. Cal. January 19, 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading