GA: Question in inventory was whether it was reasonable, not whether it was necessary

The question in inventory was whether it was reasonable, not whether it was necessary. Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not moving to suppress. McAnnally v. State, 2024 Ga. App. LEXIS 19 (Jan. 18, 2024).

The prolonged retention of defendant’s cell phone for its search did not become an unreasonable search. United States v. Sessions, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1150 (9th Cir. Jan. 18, 2024).

Defendant explicitly consented orally and in writing to the search of his laptop. United States v. Dzionara-Norsen, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1144 (2d Cir. Jan. 18, 2024).*

The wiretap being valid, the subsequent search was, too. United States v. Marin, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8855 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Consent, Inventory, Scope of search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.