Record supported finding of consent. District Court did suppress one handgun, but it did not come into evidence at trial. United States v. Hawkins, 182 Fed. Appx. 243 (4th Cir. May 25, 2006)* (unpublished).

Trip wire was placed in CI’s car for controlled delivery. The activication of the trip wire was exigent circumstances. United States v. Mondragon, 181 Fed. Appx. 904 (11th Cir. May 24, 2006)* (unpublished).

Record supported district court’s conclusion that the defendant consented to further questioning. While she had some difficult communicating in English, she understood enough to consent to the search. United States v. Rodriguez, 186 Fed. Appx. 812 (10th Cir. May 23, 2006)* (unpublished).

Defendant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of his computer when he took it in for repair and child porn was found. The computer tech’s observations alone are PC for a computer search. The Magistrate Judge’s reliance on the First Circuit’s decision in United States v. Brunette, 256 F.3d 14, 19 (1st Cir. 2001), apparently requiring lurid detail of the child porn in the affidavit, is rejected, because that is not Eighth Circuit law. United States v. Grant, 434 F. Supp. 2d 735 (D. Neb. May 24, 2006)* (the Magistrate Judge twice recommended suppression).

Civil investigation into alleged health care fraud did not lapse when it changed into a criminal investigation, too. Three times the government sought under 42 C.F.R. § 2.62 to use the material gathered civilly in the criminal investigation without notice to the target (§ 2.66(b)), and the Magistrate granted it. Suppression is not the remedy. Defendant’s analogy to tax cases is rejected because the law in that area is different. United States v. Shinderman, 432 F. Supp. 2d 149 (D. Maine May 24, 2006).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.