Defendant\u2019s cell phone is in the possession of the government but it can\u2019t search it because they don\u2019t have the pass code. Defendant\u2019s request for discovery of the phone under Rule 16 is denied because the contents of the phone are not in the possession of the government. United States v. Young, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36922 (D. Minn. Mar. 4, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In this drug search warrant, firearms were mentioned in the affidavit but not the warrant itself. During the search, firearms were found, and they were properly seized at least as plain view. State v. Brown<\/a>, 2024 Del. Super. LEXIS 138 (Mar. 1, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201c[H]e had probable cause to stop that car for civil violations or misdemeanor traffic infractions including vehicle registration, speeding and crossing the center line. He also had reasonable suspicion to believe the car was stolen based on the fake license tag and the \u2018wrap\u2019 that concealed the car’s original paint color. Either way, the officer’s decision to stop the car was proper.\u201d United States v. Young, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36634 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 2, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant\u2019s cell phone is in the possession of the government but it can\u2019t search it because they don\u2019t have the pass code. Defendant\u2019s request for discovery of the phone under Rule 16 is denied because the contents of the phone … Continue reading