Defendant was subjected to a state probation search in 2005 for child pornography on a computer and it was suppressed because of a lack of a search warrant for the computers. The same happened here again. He was subject to probation searches of his person, vehicle, and residence, but he was never told that his computers were subject to probation searches. While there was reasonable suspicion for a probation search, the computer required a warrant, and the motion to suppress is granted. While the court is loath to suppress because the suppression should be the exception rather than the rule, it has to here because they violated his Fourth Amendment rights again. United States v. Swearingen, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7473 (D. Mont. January 8, 2013). [Note: At least in my federal district, the J&C in federal sex offenses includes a provision for supervised release that the computer is, in fact, subject to warrantless search by the USPO.]<\/p>\n
Manner and place of travel can be suspicious very near the border, for instance, on a road only locals should be on. \u201cAlthough there were no objective measures offered to evaluate these assertions, this factor does deserve significant weight given Sasabe’s proximity to the border and the amount and frequency of alien and drug smuggling activity in the area.\u201d United States v. Rodriguez, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184699 (D. Ariz. October 18, 2012).<\/p>\n
Where two of three bulbs in a taillight were working, it was \u201cin good working order\u201d and the stop was unjustified. Post-conviction relief granted. State v. Brown<\/a>, 2013 WI App 17, 346 Wis. 2d 98, 827 N.W.2d 903 (2013).*<\/p>\n Withdrawing the motion to suppress makes it moot. United States v. Forrest, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184615 (D. Nev. October 31, 2012).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading