Search of premises for a person includes a search of anywhere the person could hide, including a closet

Stating the obvious, which it apparently was not for one party, consent to search a house for a person includes any place where that person could be hiding. So, a closet could be searched. A previous protective sweep of the room does not mean that the officers cannot return to the room to look again. United States v. Vasquez-Lozano, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27099 (W.D. N.C. March 19, 2008).

There is no expectation of privacy in the information collected by an Internet service provider about one’s account, and a subpoena for its records on the defendant did not violate any reasonable expectation of privacy. [This was not an issue raised by the defense; it was raised by the court sua sponte to cut off a potential 2255 claim.] United States v. Polizzi, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26900 (E.D. N.Y. April 1, 2008)*. Comment: This is an important decision for other reasons: The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to have juries told about mandatory minimums. See post on lawofcriminaldefense.com.

Omission of certain details in search warrant application did not hardly rise to the level of a sufficient discrepancy to show that the search warrant would not have issued. Soto v. Paredes, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26982 (D. Ariz. March 27, 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.