Defendant was arrested in Malaysia and a computer and cell phones were seized. He was then indicted in NYC. The nine-day delay in getting a warrant was not unreasonable considering defendant was in custody and unable to use them. A stay of execution of the warrant is denied. He\u2019s been indicted, and there was probable cause. The only case he cites doesn\u2019t provide any support for its rationale, plus it was pre-indictment. United States v. Hiya, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222422 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Amazon has surveillance equipment in delivery vans, and plaintiff\u2019s was hit by a train. Amazon released the video publicly, and plaintiff sued claiming a violation of state law. He had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the van. Evans v. Amazon.Com, Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223002 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 10, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Search incident doesn\u2019t require proof of actual exigency. State v. Duffee, 2024 Ore. App. LEXIS 1686 (Dec. 11, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The affiant\u2019s failure to cross-reference information in the file was \u201cregrettable\u201d but insufficient for a Franks violation. Burgos v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223456 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant was arrested in Malaysia and a computer and cell phones were seized. He was then indicted in NYC. The nine-day delay in getting a warrant was not unreasonable considering defendant was in custody and unable to use them. A … Continue reading