Defendant\u2019s motion to suppress the search of Device A is premature since the product of the search isn’t yet known. Also, his motion to suppress the search of Device B is denied for lack of standing. It isn\u2019t his. United States v. Sterling, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6852 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant contended that his presence at the scene of the execution of the search warrant amounted to custody for Miranda purposes. He tried to show that the officers manipulated the situation to avoid \u201ccustody.\u201d The court disagrees. United States v. Mamadjonov, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6479 (D. Conn. Jan. 13, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
An LPN check revealed the registered owner had an expired DL, and the driver\u2019s age appeared roughly the same as the owner. That supported the stop. United States v. Thayer, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6657 (S.D. W. Va. Jan. 13, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s motion to suppress the search of Device A is premature since the product of the search isn’t yet known. Also, his motion to suppress the search of Device B is denied for lack of standing. It isn\u2019t his. United … Continue reading