The court agrees that an entry into the curtilage to search a trash container would implicate Jardines, but it finds here that the entry onto the front part of the defendant\u2019s property to the trash container was still the area open to visitors and the curtilage was not violated. United States v. Edwards, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70109 (E.D.Pa. May 29, 2015).<\/p>\n
In this child pornography case, the government notified the court that officers were mistaken in their testimony that occupants of the house were handcuffed during the raid. The court reconvened and took testimony, and finds that the handcuffing had nothing to do with the finding of child pornography because it would have inevitably been found based on the warrant. This was harmless error if error at all. United States v. Mailloux, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70104 (E.D.Pa. May 21, 2015).*<\/p>\n
Defendant didn\u2019t show counsel was ineffective for not arguing Jones applied to GPS placement two years before it was decided, adopting Davis good faith based on Karo and Knotts, which the circuit has already done in criminal cases. Freeman v. United States<\/a>, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9027 (June 1, 2015).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The court agrees that an entry into the curtilage to search a trash container would implicate Jardines, but it finds here that the entry onto the front part of the defendant\u2019s property to the trash container was still the area … Continue reading