\u201cMr. Adams contends that the agents coerced him into giving consent involuntarily when they threatened to seize his phone and hold it until they obtained a search warrant. \u2026 I disagree. For the reasons stated below, I conclude that Mr. Adams’ consent was voluntary and that the agents’ statements about the existence of exigent circumstances and their ability to obtain a warrant were both supported by law and a fair characterization of how the investigation would proceed.\u201d United States v. Adams, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196352 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 28, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The protective sweep here looking under the bed was reasonable. Defendant\u2019s contention the sweep went further isn\u2019t clear. Some things were moved and opened, but a search warrant had been executed between the sweep and her reentering the house. United States v. Harrell, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195776 (S.D. W. Va. Oct. 27, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A state law violation on the jurisdiction of the officer is irrelevant under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Nelson, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195974 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2022)* (\u201cI agree with Defendant that such a reading of the case law could lead to an absurd result. It cannot be that a local law-enforcement officer can traverse the country and, upon witnessing a potential crime that creates probable cause, stop and search people. But the Eleventh Circuit did not provide a limiting principle in Goings when it applied Moore to the question of jurisdiction, and I am bound by this precedent. Even so, this case is not one that pushes the scope of the rule to the edge.\u201d)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cMr. Adams contends that the agents coerced him into giving consent involuntarily when they threatened to seize his phone and hold it until they obtained a search warrant. \u2026 I disagree. For the reasons stated below, I conclude that Mr. … Continue reading