Defendant was in the Marine Corps and a Command Authorized Search and Seizure (CASS) for his electronic devices was executed for child pornography. It was sufficiently particular to satisfy the Fourth Amendment. \u201cIn this case, the challenged warrant did not have to \u2018delineate each and every\u2019 device by their assigned IP addresses because searching all of the devices was a reasonable investigative measure based on the nature of the suspected offenses.\u201d The CASS search could be used in federal court. United States v. Fritzinger, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120570 (E.D.N.C. July 10, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant was stopped by a park ranger for a tag violation. That led to seeing marijuana in the car door, and that led to finding meth. It was valid under the automobile exception. United States v. Perkins, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 17022 (5th Cir. July 11, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe Court finds Detective Michaud’s testimony credible. Thus, regardless of whether law enforcement officers subjectively hoped to find evidence of other crimes, Detective Michaud observed a traffic violation. Therefore, the initial traffic stop was reasonable for purposes of analysis under the Fourth Amendment.\u201d United States v. Riley, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122001 (D.S.C. July 11, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant was in the Marine Corps and a Command Authorized Search and Seizure (CASS) for his electronic devices was executed for child pornography. It was sufficiently particular to satisfy the Fourth Amendment. \u201cIn this case, the challenged warrant did not … Continue reading