{"id":5986,"date":"2012-04-05T09:44:26","date_gmt":"2011-09-05T07:13:46","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-09-05T07:13:46","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5986","title":{"rendered":"E.D.Cal.: No standing in business search outside of personal office"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Defendant\u2019s failure to show that anything was seized from his personal office separates this business search from <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=13609296636737320599&amp;q=Mancusi&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=1002\">Mancusi v. DeForte<\/a> and <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=11788956814365356517&amp;q=SDI+Future+Health&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,4\">SDI Future Health<\/a>, so his motion to reconsider is denied. United States v. Salyer, 814 F. Supp. 2d 984 (E.D. Cal. 2011).*<\/p>\n<p>After defendant asked for three appointed attorneys to be excused from his case because of inability to get along with the lawyers, he was warned that he wasn\u2019t getting a fourth lawyer, and he\u2019d have to go pro se or retain counsel if it happened again. Just before the suppression hearing, the third lawyer made a motion to be relieved because he had irreconcilable differences with defendant. The court granted the motion but ordered the lawyer to remain as standby counsel for the suppression motion. Defendant was not unconstitutionally denied his right to counsel at the suppression hearing. Long v. United States, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98348 (E.D. Tenn. August 31, 2011).<\/p>\n<p>The Pennsylvania State Trooper was described here as a narcotics intelligence officer who stopped a speeding rented SUV because he felt there was something up. While the factors the officer relied on for his suspicions were normal activity, other factors learned during the valid stop supported reasonable suspicion: Five car rentals in the previous four months, four border crossings from Mexico that year (per EPIC), he wasn\u2019t an authorized driver on the car. United States v. Anderson, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98233 (E.D. Pa. August 30, 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5986\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5986","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5986","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5986"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5986\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5986"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5986"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5986"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}