Defendant\u2019s parole officer brought along two police officers for a home visit and search on suspicion he was communicating with minors on his phone and computer, and this was reasonable. \u201cThe court finds that the seizure of defendant’s cell phone was valid under the special needs exception because Detectives Wright and Bostick were participating under the direction of Officer Radcliffe. The mere fact that defendant handed the phone to Detective Wright as opposed to Officer Radcliffe is a distinction without any Constitutional significance.\u201d United States v. McClelland, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123954 (D. Kan. October 26, 2011).*<\/p>\n
Defendant did not object to the USMJ\u2019s findings, so it is waived. On the merits, he would lose because there was reasonable suspicion anyway as to his car. United States v. Beasley<\/a>, 447 Fed. Appx. 32 (11th Cir. 2011).*<\/p>\n There was reasonable suspicion to stop defendant\u2019s car because it matched the description of a vehicle involved in a robbery and was near it. United States v. Hicks, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124255 (E.D. Pa. October 27, 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading