Officers were in defendant\u2019s house investigating a burglary and found a methamphetamine lab. It was reasonable to call for other officers who entered without a warrant because the lab was exigency. United States v. Sill, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183580 (D. Nev. July 22, 2013), adopted 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5797 (D. Nev. January 15, 2014).*<\/p>\n
Defendant did not have a search condition on supervised release, but he did have an Internet prohibition. When his PO found his computer connected to the Internet, there was a violation, so seizure of the computer and then its search was appropriate. United States v. Berger, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5653 (W.D. Ark. January 8, 2014),* adopted 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5654 (W.D. Ark. January 16, 2014).*<\/p>\n
Appellate defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for not arguing that trial counsel should have filed a motion to reconsider a denial of a motion to suppress clothing where the clothing wasn\u2019t used against defendant at trial. Oliver v. United States, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183624 (N.D. Tex. October 4, 2013).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading