\u201cExamining the totality of the circumstances, the evidence shows that the officers reasonably believed that Guerrero-Nu\u00f1ez lived in Apartment 204 and would be present when they entered the apartment. As such, their entry into the apartment did not violate Guerrero-Nu\u00f1ez’s Fourth Amendment rights.\u201d It was also by consent. United States v. Nu\u00f1ez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25003 (D.N.H. Feb. 12, 2025). As to standing, the affidavit showed it:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
In addition, the government offered this evidence to support its contention that the agents had probable cause to connect the phones to Guerrero-Nu\u00f1ez and to seize them on the day of his arrest. It cannot offer that evidence to support the seizure of the phones and prevent Guerrero-Nu\u00f1ez from using these facts to support his standing. See United States v. Cardona, 411 F. Supp. 3d 113, 115 n.1 (D. Mass. 2019). The record evidence is sufficient to establish his standing to challenge the seizure of the phones.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cExamining the totality of the circumstances, the evidence shows that the officers reasonably believed that Guerrero-Nu\u00f1ez lived in Apartment 204 and would be present when they entered the apartment. As such, their entry into the apartment did not violate Guerrero-Nu\u00f1ez’s … Continue reading