CA7: No standing in a stolen car; PC anyway for automobile exception

Defendant was driving a stolen car. He had no standing in it. Besides, the search was good under the automobile exception with probable cause. United States v. Ostrum, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 10076 (7th Cir. Apr. 25, 2024).

The Labor Secretary’s subpoena duces tecum for information was reasonable and within the authority of the department. Su v. Servs. LLC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74901 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 24, 2024).*

“Gist has previously been convicted of drug distribution crimes …; he had been known to use his home address in carrying out those crimes …; he owned the address in question …; and he had been observed traveling from another address – his business – where evidence of drug activity had been found to his home address in a vehicle also linked to drug activity …. Additionally, ‘“an affidavit containing credible, verified allegations of drug trafficking, verification that said defendant lives at a particular address, combined with the affiant officer’s experience that drug dealers keep evidence of dealing at their residence,” can be sufficient to demonstrate a nexus between the criminal activity and the suspect residence to validate the warrant — even “when there is absolutely no indication of any wrongdoing occurring at that residence”’.” United States v. Gist, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75121 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 25, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Automobile exception, Nexus, Standing, Subpoenas / Nat'l Security Letters. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.