In a corporate office search, defendant should have presented an affidavit to show his standing in the office space. Despite that, however, the government’s search inventory strongly supports his standing because it shows documents taken from what was described as his office (\u201cDaniel Carpenter Office 1\u201d, \u201cDaniel Carpenter Office 2\u201d). The search warrants\u2019 adoption of attachments limited the breadth of the warrants. His Franks challenge fails because the uncontested part of the affidavit still shows probable cause. Despite defendant\u2019s standing to challenge the search, he doesn\u2019t have standing to seek return of corporate records. Besides, the government avers they are still being reviewed in connection with the fraud scheme, and there is no fixed time period for return. United States v. Carpenter, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171646 (D.Conn. Dec. 24, 2015).<\/p>\n
Downloading of child pornography from a specific IP address linked to defendant is probable cause for a search warrant for the house. United States v. Askren, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171296 (D.Nev. Oct. 5, 2015), adopted 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171295 (D.Nev. Dec. 23, 2015).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In a corporate office search, defendant should have presented an affidavit to show his standing in the office space. Despite that, however, the government’s search inventory strongly supports his standing because it shows documents taken from what was described as … Continue reading