\u201cThe knowing use of a file-sharing program defeats any claim of a reasonable expectation of privacy in the files shared on that network.\u201d United States v. Hoffman, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108076 (D. Minn. August 1, 2013),* R&R 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108900 (D. Minn. June 27, 2013).*<\/p>\n
The seizure of defendant\u2019s Express Mail package implicated the Fourth Amendment, but it was reasonable. [This case is unnecessarily long and goes on for ten pages when it could have been done in two: Dog sniff in transit is no interference with package; sniff is PC for warrant; slight delay for warrant is de minimus. (It’s a rookie judge.)] United States v. Hoyt, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108135 (E.D. Ark. August 1, 2013).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s racial profiling claim, if that\u2019s what it is, isn\u2019t cognizable on habeas. Alvardo v. United States, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108152 (M.D. Pa. August 1, 2013).*<\/p>\n
To win on a Fourth Amendment IAC claim, the habeas petitioner has to show that he\u2019d have prevailed, and here he can\u2019t. Ray v. United States<\/a>, 721 F.3d 758 (6th Cir. 2013).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading