Squeezing a mail package in transit isn\u2019t the same as a suitcase near at hand (Jones), and there was no reasonable expectation of privacy. Quinonez v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204220 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A blanket Fourth Amendment objection to forfeiture discovery requests was a discovery abuse. \u201cHere, the district court found that Haussmann had \u2018abused\u2019 the discovery process by refusing to respond to interrogatories and asserting a blanket Fourth Amendment objection in response to discovery requests. \u2026 To be sure, the district court was drawing from the more common cases where a claimant refuses to respond to interrogatories while asserting a Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination. \u2026 But in a posture like this one where courts consider standing issues before they consider merits-based motions to suppress, \u2026, the analogy between blanket Fourth and blanket Fifth Amendment objections was permissible.\u201d United States v. $774,830.00 in United States Currency, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 28499 (6th Cir. Nov. 7, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In apparently only the second anticipatory search case to be decided in the state, the court concludes that the package was on a sure course to defendant\u2019s house and there was probable cause shown once the triggering event occurred. State v. Ortiz-Bedolla, 2024 Del. Super. LEXIS 741 (Nov. 8, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Squeezing a mail package in transit isn\u2019t the same as a suitcase near at hand (Jones), and there was no reasonable expectation of privacy. Quinonez v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204220 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2024). A blanket … Continue reading