While defendant claimed to be \u201ca very private man,\u201d his use of his property was sufficiently joint with his son that the son could consent to a search, and the consent was voluntary. United States v. Ervin, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105123 (M.D. Ala. August 17, 2011), adopted 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101362 (M.D. Ala., Sept. 8, 2011).*<\/p>\n
The disputed facts for summary judgment were whether the officers had a search warrant or a valid exception for search without one, and summary judgment for the officers was inappropriate at this time. Brown v. Passmore<\/a>, 445 Fed. Appx. 187 (11th Cir. 2011).*<\/p>\n The affidavit for the issuance of a search warrant for immigration fraud clearly provided probable cause, and during the execution of the search warrant officers found evidence of providing material support to terrorists. Defendant was pro se on the motion to suppress, and he made fantastic and disjointed arguments that the officer applying for the search warrants didn\u2019t know what he clearly knew. United States v. Subasic, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105547 (E.D. N.C. August 11, 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading