Stating the obvious, which it apparently was not for one party, consent to search a house for a person includes any place where that person could be hiding. So, a closet could be searched. A previous protective sweep of the room does not mean that the officers cannot return to the room to look again. United States v. Vasquez-Lozano, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27099 (W.D. N.C. March 19, 2008).<\/p>\n
There is no expectation of privacy in the information collected by an Internet service provider about one’s account, and a subpoena for its records on the defendant did not violate any reasonable expectation of privacy. [This was not an issue raised by the defense; it was raised by the court sua sponte to cut off a potential 2255 claim.] United States v. Polizzi, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26900 (E.D. N.Y. April 1, 2008)*. Comment:<\/em> This is an important decision for other reasons: The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to have juries told about mandatory minimums. See post on lawofcriminaldefense.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n Omission of certain details in search warrant application did not hardly rise to the level of a sufficient discrepancy to show that the search warrant would not have issued. Soto v. Paredes, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26982 (D. Ariz. March 27, 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading