CA6: Defendant’s denial of a connection to the premises likely denies him standing, but District Court didn’t decide that

The search of the apartment here was by consent from someone with apparent authority. Also, defendant repeatedly denied living there on the record, so he likely lacked standing, but the district court did not rule on standing, so the appellate court won’t either. United States v. Marrero, 651 F.3d 453, 2011 FED App. 0175P (6th Cir. 2011).*

At trial, the defendant officers came forward with evidence of exigent circumstances justifying their actions. The jury was properly instructed on the plaintiff’s burden of proof. Bogan v. City of Chicago, 644 F.3d 563 (7th Cir. 2011).*

Defendant’s request for a Franks hearing was properly denied. “Because Erickson failed to offer any proof in support of his claims, the district court’s denial of his request for a Franks hearing was not error.” United States v. Cha, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13722 (11th Cir. June 20, 2011) (unpublished).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.