Defendant\u2019s plea agreement foreclosed his Rule 41(g) motion for return of property. United States v. Spencer, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206257 (D. Mass. Nov. 17, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s motion to reconsider denial of his motion to suppress the timeliness of his cell phone search and raise a new circuit case was denied as untimely. The circuit court merely followed two other decisions, one of which was a decade ago, so the argument was available to the defense. United States v. Purbeck, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205509 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 25, 2023),* adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204241 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 14, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant consented to a search of his wallet when he handed it over to the officer. \u201cTrue, the officer’s precise wording\u2014\u2018Let me see [the wallet] for a moment\u2019\u2014could, in some contexts, perhaps be viewed as a command. But in the circumstances here, it was not clear error for the district court to find otherwise.\u201d (concurring opinion) United States v. Tellez, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30657 (6th Cir. Nov. 17, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2254 petitioner\u2019s search claim is barred by Stone. Thomas v. Taskila, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30660 (6th Cir. Nov. 16, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s plea agreement foreclosed his Rule 41(g) motion for return of property. United States v. Spencer, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206257 (D. Mass. Nov. 17, 2023). Defendant\u2019s motion to reconsider denial of his motion to suppress the timeliness of his … Continue reading