A preservation request under 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 2703(f) for defendant\u2019s Snapchat account isn\u2019t an unreasonable search or seizure. Even if, \u201csuppression would not be warranted because the FBI acted in good faith reliance on the Stored Communications Act. As a result, Colbert’s suppression motion is denied.\u201d United States v. Colbert, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85096 (D. Kan. May 9, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Considering the totality, the district court did not clearly err on the voluntariness of consent of a man handcuffed in a holding cell. \u201cThe district court concluded that Deputy Maleno did not threaten Shephard with a warrant or suggest that refusing consent would be futile, and Deputy Maleno had a reasonable basis for informing Shephard that a search warrant could be obtained because officers already had a warrant for Shephard’s person, home, and car. The court’s determination that this factor weighed in favor of voluntariness was not clearly erroneous.\u201d United States v. Shephard, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 11431 (9th Cir. May 10, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff\u2019s complaint against these defendants are against private actors not subject to the Fourth Amendment. They move to dismiss and plaintiff doesn\u2019t respond. Granted. Rowe v. Santilli, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85079 (D. Conn. May 10, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A preservation request under 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 2703(f) for defendant\u2019s Snapchat account isn\u2019t an unreasonable search or seizure. Even if, \u201csuppression would not be warranted because the FBI acted in good faith reliance on the Stored Communications Act. As a … Continue reading