Defendant\u2019s general objections to the R&R on his search claims don\u2019t attempt to show the alleged errors in the USMJ\u2019s reasoning and just rehashed the original arguments. Overruled, and adopted. United States v. Shaka, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19267 (D. Minn. Feb. 4, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The government carried its burden of consent. \u201cThe dispositive facts that require denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress are that Mrs. Ramos gave the NYPD written and verbal consent to search her apartment, and there is no evidence of coercion by the police that would render her consent involuntary. \u2026 There is no dispute that Mrs. Ramos signed a Consent Form. See GX1; Tr. at 123:9 (Mrs. Ramos: \u2018I signed it.\u2019). It states that she \u2018voluntarily consent[ed] to a complete search\u2019 of her apartment. GX1. The Consent Form that Mrs. Ramos indisputably signed also advised her of her rights to \u2018refuse\u2019 and to \u2018revoke\u2019 her consent, in whole or in part, at any time. GX1. Further, at the hearing, the defendant’s own witness, Tiffany Mercado, testified that the police \u2018asked\u2019 for and received Mrs. Ramos’ verbal consent to search the closet where they found the rifle and ammunition the defense seeks to suppress.\u201d United States v. Ramos, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18056 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A tracking order to install a tracker on a package left outdoors expected to be moved again permitted entry into the backyard of an apartment house to place it. Also, there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in that backyard. United States v. Bell, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19151 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 4, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s general objections to the R&R on his search claims don\u2019t attempt to show the alleged errors in the USMJ\u2019s reasoning and just rehashed the original arguments. Overruled, and adopted. United States v. Shaka, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19267 (D. … Continue reading