Search warrant for defendant\u2019s \u201cmobile office\u201d in his Lincoln Navigator was reasonable and issued with probable cause. Amex discovered an identity theft operation getting credit cards, and a controlled delivery was set up. When the card was attempted to be delivered to a particular address, it was refused, but defendant stopped the delivery truck and sought the package. In the Navigator was an open laptop and an apparent mobile office. The fact another computer could have been used for the identity theft did not negate the probable cause for this one. United States v. Adigun, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60310 (N.D. Ga. May 4, 2011):<\/p>\n
Defendants also argue that there was no statement in the affidavit that Onyekaba used any computer, much less the laptop in the vehicle, to commit credit card fraud or identity theft, and that he \u201ccould have easily been using a home computer … or the computer of a third party.\u201d [Doc. 49 at 7]. However, such a possibility does not remove the laptop in the vehicle from suspicion. See Fama, 758 F.2d at 838. Investigator Meeks stated in his affidavit and during his testimony that he believed that the fraudulent application was \u201cmade via internet connection\u201d and \u201cvery likely done using the laptop visible in the Navigator.\u201d [Doc. 49-1 at 4]. He also testified that it appeared, based on the laptop and the paperwork surrounding it, that Onyekaba was using the Navigator as a \u201cmobile office,\u201d and was driving to locations to pick up deliveries of fraudulent credit cards. [Doc. 49-2 at 4:30, 4:58]. Investigator Meeks also reported that when the officers approached Onyekaba to question him, he fled the scene on foot, leaving behind the laptop and other items in the Navigator. [Doc. 49-1 at 4].<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading