Defendant\u2019s motion to suppress searches of cell phones is denied because he doesn\u2019t show any standing in the phones that were searched. \u201cA motion to suppress is not a discovery tool. Without a basic factual premise, the Court cannot discern threshold questions of law, such as standing.\u201d United States v. Agosto-Pacheco, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182482 (D.P.R. Oct. 4, 2022). [If done right, it can be.]<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s stop for not having an LPN was valid. It turned out there was a drive out tag in the back, but it wasn\u2019t visible to the officer. There were other furtive suspicious things he did in the car before the stop. Wilson v. State<\/a>, 2022 Miss. App. LEXIS 354 (Oct. 4, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n There was probable cause for seizure of defendant\u2019s cell phone for a later search warrant. United States v. Santiago, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182252 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 5, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n Just because the judge on the 2255 reviewed and issued a search warrant early in the case is no ground to recuse from the 2255. United States v. Peterson, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182438 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant\u2019s motion to suppress searches of cell phones is denied because he doesn\u2019t show any standing in the phones that were searched. \u201cA motion to suppress is not a discovery tool. Without a basic factual premise, the Court cannot discern … Continue reading