Defendant seeks unrestricted phone access without recording, but not just to his lawyer or standby counsel\u2013every call. No First, Fourth, or Sixth Amendment violation (limited to lawyers). United States v. Cromar, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215498 (D. Utah Dec. 4, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff federal inmate sued Tracfone for allegedly providing information about him to the government that helped lead to his 852 month sentence for sex trafficking. The statute of limitations for violations of the Stored Communications Act is two years, and the pleadings in this criminal case show that he knew about it more than two years before filing suit. Thus, the claim is barred. Boyle v. Tracfone Wireless, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214031 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 1, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The totality of information in the search warrant showed an ongoing enterprise, so the information wasn\u2019t stale. State v. Williams, 2023-Ohio-4344 (6th Dist. Dec. 1, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant seeks unrestricted phone access without recording, but not just to his lawyer or standby counsel\u2013every call. No First, Fourth, or Sixth Amendment violation (limited to lawyers). United States v. Cromar, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215498 (D. Utah Dec. 4, … Continue reading