Defendant had guest standing but did not have sufficient exclusive control over the room he was staying in such that the principal occupant of the premises couldn\u2019t consent to a search of the room. The consenter came and went through the room during the day keeping his own stuff there. United States v. Noyola-Martinez, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18075 (D. Alaska February 22, 2011).* <\/p>\n
The undisputed evidence was that defendant consented to the search of his property, so his lawyer was not ineffective for not challenging it. Jones v. United States, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17264 (W.D. Mo. February 22, 2011).*<\/p>\n
The search warrant in this case was issued by a state judge on a state officer\u2019s application. While the product of the search led to a federal indictment, it was a state search governed by state law so Rule 41 does not apply. But, even if it did, there are two types of Rule 41 violations: constitutional violations and all others. United States v. Simons<\/a>, 206 F.3d 392 (4th Cir. 2000). This is not a constitutional violation. This was an investigation of a violation of a burglary that produced a sawed-off shotgun which is also a violation of federal law. The search warrant made this a lawful plain view. United States v. Bryan, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141565 (N.D. W.Va. December 2, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading