CA6: Electronic devices were “property under his control” subject to search while on supervised release

Defendant’s electronic devices were “property under his control” subject to search while on supervised release. United States v. Ramadan, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 23276 (6th Cir. Sep. 11, 2024).

Plaintiff pleads an unreasonable strip search in prison, but the necessary facts are omitted. He needs to amend. Sanders v. Mo. E. Corr. Ctr., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163505 (E.D. Mo. Sep. 10, 2024).*

Probable cause was shown for CP: “The 30-page affidavit allowed for the reasonable inference that evidence related to CSAM would be found in Jennings’s vehicle. [The officer] described in painstaking detail how he determined that an IP address tied to Jennings’s residence was likely accessing the BitTorrent network to download child pornography.” United States v. Jennings, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163602 (W.D. Va. Sep. 11, 2024).*

The officer made a misrepresentation in the affidavit for warrant which could have misled the magistrate, but it wasn’t material to the probable cause finding. Denied. United States v. Wallin, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163692 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 11, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Franks doctrine, Prison and jail searches, Probable cause, Probation / Parole search, Strip search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.