CA10: Nexus for CP can logically move when def does

Police had probable cause defendant uploaded child pornography from home. Then he moved. It was reasonable to assume his computers went with him to the new address, so nexus was sufficiently shown for probable cause there. United States v. Kilgore, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 15159 (10th Cir. May 21, 2021). [Note: This is based in substantial part on the possessor’s keeping the CP for long periods of time, which means an affidavit is never stale. This won’t apply to other types of searches without applying the actual facts and the government showing nexus with proof or inference.]

The state post-conviction court found no ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to file a meritless motion to suppress, and that’s affirmed under 2254(d). Nettles v. Stange, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96905 (E.D. Mo. May 21, 2021).*

TRO denied against electronic search condition imposed on plaintiff. He can’t possibly prevail under Samson. Holston v. Rosa, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97147 (E.D. Cal. May 21, 2021).*

The officer could approach defendant’s car to talk to him about his being illegally parked. The officer saw a package of heroin sticking out of defendant’s pocket. That was probable cause under the automobile exception. United States v. Felder, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97141 (D.N.J. May 21, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Nexus, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d). Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.