Defendant\u2019s Facebook page was subject to being searched because there were interactions on it with a coconspirator, and that showed probable cause. United States v. Daprato, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78626 (D.Md. May 2, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cFrey’s motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to the Cell Site Information Warrant and the Electronic Device Warrant is denied. Both warrants are particularized, are not overbroad, and are linked to the probable cause set forth in their supporting affidavits. Nonetheless, were the warrants invalid, the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies.\u201d United States v. Frey, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78292 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cFirst, Defendant seeks to suppress the evidence found as a result of searches of cell phones and cell phone records, including location data, conducted pursuant to multiple warrants and orders. \u2026 Second, Defendant seeks to suppress the evidence resulting from searches of 2762 Willakenzie Drive in Eugene, Oregon; 1146 Brockton Place in Eugene, Oregon; FOE Media Group, 1650 West Eleventh Avenue, #6 in Eugene, Oregon; Defendant’s DNA; and 1712 Elkay Drive in Eugene, Oregon. \u2026 Third, Defendant seeks to suppress the evidence resulting from searches of his cell site location information (\u2018CSLI\u2019), call detail records, subscriber information, and precision location information. \u2026\u201d A hearing was held, and defendant has no standing in any of it. United States v. Rhodes, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77231 (D.Ore. Apr. 28, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s Facebook page was subject to being searched because there were interactions on it with a coconspirator, and that showed probable cause. United States v. Daprato, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78626 (D.Md. May 2, 2022).* \u201cFrey’s motion to suppress evidence … Continue reading