There was justification for the plain view seizure of defendant\u2019s cell phone when it came to the scene of the crime with him. United States v. Dulaney, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151204 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 23, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cSaldana-Alaniz fails to show that a reasonable person would not have understood that he was consenting to a search of his one-room efficiency apartment when he told officers that they could search his apartment. \u2026 Moreover, even if the officers failed to appreciate a limitation that he contends he placed on his consent, that mistake was reasonable given that Saldana-Alaniz expressly agreed to the search and told them he lived in the efficiency.\u201d United States v. Saldana-Alaniz, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 21292 (5th Cir. Aug. 22, 2024).* [Sounds like the court shifted the burden of proving consent.]<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The search warrant and wiretaps here were supported by probable cause based on information from confidential informants whose credibility was bolstered by details showing firsthand knowledge and corroboration found by the police. United States v. Rodriguez, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 21384 (1st Cir. Aug. 23, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
There was justification for the plain view seizure of defendant\u2019s cell phone when it came to the scene of the crime with him. United States v. Dulaney, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151204 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 23, 2024).* \u201cSaldana-Alaniz fails to … Continue reading