Defendant was suspected of a bank robbery. While the vehicle searched was in another person\u2019s name, defendant regularly drove it, and that gave him standing to contest the search by consent the other person gave. Her consent was free and voluntary after reading a consent form. Defendant never negated the consent at the scene. Moreover, the officers had probable cause to search the car because they believed it was involved in the bank robbery. United States v. Lopez, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184211 (E.D. Tenn. August 22, 2012).*<\/p>\n
In a Rule 41(g) motion for return of property, the government showed that it may use most of the things seized from defendant for trial, but some it offered to return. Essentially, as long as the things may reasonably be used at trial, the government doesn\u2019t have to return them. As to the things being returned, defendant is in custody, so it\u2019s up to the BOP what happens with it. United States v. White, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4627 (S.D. Fla. January 11, 2013).*<\/p>\n
\u201cApplying the relevant principles, the Court concludes that the search warrant affidavits are replete with probable cause.\u201d Motion to suppress for lack of probable cause denied. United States v. Winfrey, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4585 (D. Neb. January 10, 2013).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading