A person in prison has no standing to contest a wiretap on a contraband cell phone. United States v. Yandell, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91166 (E.D.Cal. May 20, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe facts of this case indicate that [Officer] Leitzen, while conducting a lawful Terry frisk for weapons, determined based on his experience that the objects he felt in Hunt’s pocket were packaged drugs, specifically either powder cocaine, crack cocaine, or heroin. Unlike in Dickerson, the record in this case contains no evidence to suggest that Leitzen extended the pat-down or explored Hunt’s pocket further than permitted to discover if Hunt was armed. This determination that Hunt at that moment possessed illegal drugs, if founded, would establish probable cause for Hunt’s arrest and seizure of the drugs after a search incident to his arrest.\u201d State v. Hunt, 2022 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 60 (May 20, 2022).*
https:\/\/www.iowacourts.gov\/courtcases\/14183\/embed\/SupremeCourtOpinion<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This stop was reasonably extended because reasonable suspicion developed during it. United States v. Taylor, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91172 (E.D.Tenn. May 20, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The government\u2019s first justification for the stop, a traffic offense, fails. It\u2019s \u201cfall back argument\u201d that there was reliable information from a CI does not. United States v. Boatright, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90944 (N.D.Tex. May 20, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A person in prison has no standing to contest a wiretap on a contraband cell phone. United States v. Yandell, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91166 (E.D.Cal. May 20, 2022). \u201cThe facts of this case indicate that [Officer] Leitzen, while conducting … Continue reading