NCIS was investigating potential criminal activity of Navy personnel in civilian areas of Guam, and that was a proper investigative function. Therefore, the Posse Comitatus Act wasn\u2019t violated, and there was nothing to suppress. (The defense also raised dismissal as a remedy, which case law settles it isn’t without a pattern. Here, none.) United States v. Ho, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10007 (D. Guam January 22, 2013).<\/p>\n
Knowledge of right to refuse a consent search is weighty on voluntariness. \u201cMoreover, a review of the \u2018Permissive Authorization for Search and Seizure,\u2019 which was signed by Defendant Ho, shows the following statement, \u201cI have been informed of my constitutional right to refuse to permit this search in the absence of a search warrant. In full understanding of this right, I have nevertheless decided to permit this search to be made.\u2019\u201d United States v. Ho, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10010 (D. Guam January 22, 2013).<\/p>\n
The search warrant for defendant\u2019s computer was issued the day after it was seized, and this is, of course, [quite] reasonable [considering cases have permitted much longer delays elsewhere]. United States v. Devlin-Bell, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9876 (E.D. Pa. January 17, 2013).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading