In this racketeering case, defendant admitted for purposes of the motion to suppress he was in the gang and that people engaged in violent acts. The government never showed probable cause to believe his cell phone had evidence of a crime on it. It was, in fact, \u201cbare bones\u201d under the good faith exception. United States v. Silva, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129082 (S.D.N.Y. July 19, 2024). [Moral? The affiant has to allege that the phone was somehow used in relation to the racketeering enterprise; here, the government argued only that it was \u201clikely\u201d with no factual support.]<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s prior motions to suppress were denied, but they depend on the legality of the stop, which the court now finds was with reasonable suspicion. United States v. Grace, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127534 (E.D. La. July 18, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Two years\u2019 GPS monitoring as a condition of probation was not unreasonable. Commonwealth v. Rezac, 2024 Mass. LEXIS 287 (July 22, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There was probable cause for defendant\u2019s arrest. Whether the search incident was before or after didn\u2019t matter because it was substantially contemporaneous. United States v. Maye, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128631 (S.D. Ohio July 22, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In this racketeering case, defendant admitted for purposes of the motion to suppress he was in the gang and that people engaged in violent acts. The government never showed probable cause to believe his cell phone had evidence of a … Continue reading