Search warrants are directed at places, and it doesn\u2019t matter that several people live there. This was a single family dwelling, so the warrant wasn\u2019t overbroad for identifying the whole home as a place to search in a child pornography case. United States v. Graham, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88796 (N.D. Ga. May 28, 2014).<\/p>\n
Even if the defense lawyer had provided the impound policy, the search result wouldn\u2019t be different. United States v. Foskey<\/a>, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12232 (11th Cir. June 30, 2014).*<\/p>\n The officers collectively had sufficient knowledge of probable cause to search defendant\u2019s car. United States v. Jenkins, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88728 (S.D. Ill. June 30, 2014).*<\/p>\n Trial court\u2019s finding of no consent from being confronted at night and having a flashlight shined in defendant\u2019s eyes was not shown to be clearly erroneous, so it\u2019s affirmed. State v. Purvis<\/a>, 2014-Ohio-2865, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 2811 (9th Dist. June 30, 2014).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Search warrants are directed at places, and it doesn\u2019t matter that several people live there. This was a single family dwelling, so the warrant wasn\u2019t overbroad for identifying the whole home as a place to search in a child pornography … Continue reading