Defendant\u2019s agreement to let police see his firearm isn\u2019t implied consent to enter his house. United States v. Arthur, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51621 (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 20, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant failed to plead standing in his motion to suppress despite the court seeking it. United States v. Williams, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51595 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 6, 2025),* adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50702 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 18, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIt was Peek’s burden to demonstrate standing, but the conflicting evidence in the record simply does not support finding that Peek has demonstrated that he had the permission of the owner of the white Honda to use the vehicle and was in lawful possession of the vehicle when he was stopped.\u201d However, even if he had standing, he loses on the merits. United States v. Peek, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51594 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 6, 2025),* adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50721 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 18, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plain view of a firearm in the house where police were executing an arrest warrant was reasonable. United States v. Brown, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50975 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 20, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s agreement to let police see his firearm isn\u2019t implied consent to enter his house. United States v. Arthur, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51621 (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 20, 2025). Defendant failed to plead standing in his motion to suppress … Continue reading