Defendant\u2019s motion to quash subpoenas for his jail telephone calls is denied. He was on notice by the inmate handbook and notices by the phone and during the calls, sometimes twice, that the calls would be recorded. United States v. Ewell, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15040 (W.D.Pa. Feb. 8, 2016).<\/p>\n
While the officer\u2019s testimony on nexus was \u201cinartful,\u201d it was still enough to show a link between defendant\u2019s cell phones and prostitutes. United States v. Key, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14607 (N.D.Ill. Feb. 5, 2016).*<\/p>\n
Defendant argues there was no reasonable suspicion for a stop for not using a turn signal in this specific instance, but that ignores that defendant fled from the attempted stop, and that was more than reasonable suspicion. United States v. Cottingham, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14719 (N.D.W.Va. Jan. 8, 2016),* adopted 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14718 (N.D.W.Va. Feb. 8, 2016).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s motion to quash subpoenas for his jail telephone calls is denied. He was on notice by the inmate handbook and notices by the phone and during the calls, sometimes twice, that the calls would be recorded. United States v. … Continue reading