The victim of an armed robbery called the police and gave chase. When defendant was located, he was arrested; not because he was in a place where a robber might be, but because he exactly matched the description of the robber, and that was probable cause. United States v. Moulton, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142059 (N.D. Ga. November 22, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Even if defense counsel was ineffective for not challenging defendant\u2019s consent to search his cell phone, which he later withdrew and a search warrant was obtained for further search, the error would be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt for lack of prejudice to the accused. McRae v. United States, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26743 (W.D. N.C. March 15, 2011).*<\/p>\n
Defendant was 23 with a sixth grade education, and he was found to have consented to the search of his house. The atmosphere was not shown to be coercive. United States v. Rodriguez-Garabito, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26644 (N.D. Ill. February 25, 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading