The DUSM here credibly testified that the target of his arrest warrant actually resided at the place searched, notwithstanding that the testimony proved incorrect. The belief was reasonable, so defendant\u2019s rights were not violated. United States v. Vasquez-Algarin, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58491 (M.D. Pa. April 28, 2014).<\/p>\n
Defendant consented to everything that happened here, including starting the conversation with the police that led to the consent. United States v. Brown, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58631 (M.D. Pa. April 28, 2014).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s bag was searched without his knowledge in the Customs area of the Atlanta airport after arriving from Ecuador because of a dog alert. Then it was searched again while still in the airport after he picked it up. The bag was still in the border area, so the extended border search doctrine doesn\u2019t apply, but, even if it did, the suitcase was still in the same condition as when it arrived the first time. United States v. Kandhai, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58656 (N.D. Ga. April 1, 2014),* adopted 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58366 (N.D. Ga. April 28, 2014).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The DUSM here credibly testified that the target of his arrest warrant actually resided at the place searched, notwithstanding that the testimony proved incorrect. The belief was reasonable, so defendant\u2019s rights were not violated. United States v. Vasquez-Algarin, 2014 U.S. … Continue reading