The guest of an overnight guest on the premises of the owner but without the owner\u2019s knowledge had standing. \u201cDefendants contend that Furdge had no legitimate privacy interest because he was in the home temporarily, lacked Rundle’s knowledge or consent, didn’t keep personal property there, lacked property rights in the home, lacked an understanding of Young’s property rights in the home, didn’t know the layout of the home, and didn’t have a key, among other things. All these details are like those rejected as immaterial in Olson. The court concludes that, as Young’s overnight guest, Furdge had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the home.\u201d Furdge v. City of Monona, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27718 (W.D.Wis. Feb. 16, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff\u2019s suit over his DUI blood draw is barred by Heck because it implicates the validity of his conviction. Mills v. Superior Court, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26904 (D.Del. Feb. 15, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s own cell phone searched with a warrant yielded location data that put him at the scene of a burglary. State v. Rios, 2022 Wisc. App. LEXIS 138 (Feb. 16, 2022) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The guest of an overnight guest on the premises of the owner but without the owner\u2019s knowledge had standing. \u201cDefendants contend that Furdge had no legitimate privacy interest because he was in the home temporarily, lacked Rundle’s knowledge or consent, … Continue reading