MS: No REP in calls from police station

Defendant’s calls from the police station after he was arrested admitted the marijuana in this case was his. The calls were admitted at trial, defense counsel challenging authentication. Defendant pro se argued a Fourth Amendment violation, but that is defaulted as not within in the objection. Even if not, there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the phone calls. Jackson v. State, 2018 Miss. App. LEXIS 329 (July 17, 2018).

The officer’s stop of defendant’s car was based on reasonable suspicion, and then probable cause developed. People v. Madera, 2018 NY Slip Op 05378, 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5292 (3d Dept. July 19, 2018).*

Petitioner filed two motions to return property: one under Rule 41(g) and another under 18 U.S.C. § 983. The former isn’t ripe; the later deserves a response. In re One 2018 Forest River Forester 2391 Rec. Vehicle “RV”, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119984 (S.D. Ill. July 18, 2018).*

This entry was posted in Automobile exception, Prison and jail searches, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Rule 41(g) / Return of property. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.