Defendant consented to providing his passcode to his cell phone. Even if not, it was admissible because of inevitable discovery. United States v. Morales, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104053 (E.D.Mo. June 10, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cDefendant’s contention that his right to due process was violated by the court’s in camera review of the search warrant application is unpreserved for our review because defendant never objected to the in camera review on that ground (see CPL 470.05 [2]).\u201d People v. Austin<\/a>, 2022 NY Slip Op 03848, 2022 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3759 (4th Dept. June 10, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWe find that Smith’s failure to further investigate did not defeat probable cause. Smith did not ignore any exculpatory evidence as the existence of other witnesses was, at most, an exculpatory lead.\u201d Brown v. Lott<\/a>, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 16022 (4th Cir. June 10, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2255 claim fails on Playpen search warrant. Smith v. United States, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104074 (N.D.Ala. June 10, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant consented to providing his passcode to his cell phone. Even if not, it was admissible because of inevitable discovery. United States v. Morales, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104053 (E.D.Mo. June 10, 2022).* \u201cDefendant’s contention that his right to due … Continue reading