The court concludes that the officers are not believable and the officers were searching defendant\u2019s apartment without a warrant or exigent circumstances when they obtained his consent which could not be voluntary. United States v. Johnson, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155710 (E.D. Pa. October 31, 2012).<\/p>\n
Notice of forfeiture provides due process so there is no Bivens claim for such forfeitures. Rankin v. United States, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156034 (S.D. Miss. October 31, 2012).*<\/p>\n
The SW was based on IP access to child pornography, and it was in somebody else\u2019s name. That, however, does not invalidate the search warrant, and the cases defendant cites in his 2255 don\u2019t support his claim. Ables v. United States, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155220 (S.D. Ohio October 30, 2012).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading