D.Kan.: Can invoke Randolph objection to consent without objecting

Defendant’s live-in girlfriend consented to a search of their apartment when he was arrested and removed. He can’t invoke Randolph because he never objected. United States v. Lee, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100923 (D. Kan. May 28, 2025).

Defendant’s refusal to accede to a DNA search was used against him in state court, but it was: (a) not shown an “unreasonable application” by the state court under § 2254(d) and (b) was harmless in any event. Balassa v. Gamboa, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101285 (E.D. Cal. May 28, 2025).*

The officer’s decision to stop a car in a left turn only lane for not signaling the turn was an an a reasonable application of the law. Denial of motion to suppress reversed. Anderson v. State, 2025 Md. App. LEXIS 425 (May 27, 2025) (unpublished).*

The attachments to the warrant made it particular. United States v. Bussey, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101046 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 4, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Particularity, Privileges. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.