Defendant was involved in a controlled buy in November 2014, but he wasn\u2019t arrested until October 2015. The passage of time does not negate the probable cause to arrest, and the staleness doctrine does not apply. Then, the detention being based on probable cause, the police could call in a drug dog. United States v. Sanchez, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17115 (W.D.Ark. Feb. 9, 2016).<\/p>\n
Defendant consented to a search of her home. She was 25 and of at least average intelligence. There was no coercion present, although she wasn\u2019t advised of a right to refuse. United States v. Bell, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16945 (E.D.Mo. Jan. 20, 2016),* adopted 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15470 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 9, 2016).*<\/p>\n
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in recorded jail calls where the inmate is on notice of the recordings. United States v. Swinton, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16883 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2016).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant was involved in a controlled buy in November 2014, but he wasn\u2019t arrested until October 2015. The passage of time does not negate the probable cause to arrest, and the staleness doctrine does not apply. Then, the detention being … Continue reading