A defendant who loses his cell phone at the scene of a crime has abandoned it by not safeguarding his privacy. This was 2009, and, besides, Riley doesn\u2019t apply to abandoned phones. United States v. Quashie, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21841 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2016).<\/p>\n
The rough neighborhood with three guns seized in recent weeks there and a shots fired call, gang turf struggles in that block, and defendant\u2019s heavy coat not matching the weather was all reasonable suspicion for defendant’s patdown. United States v. Dortch, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21191 (D.Neb. Feb. 19, 2016),* R&R 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176385 (D. Neb. Nov. 4, 2015).*<\/p>\n
Defense counsel was not ineffective for not moving to suppress a search that was, by all accounts, by defendant\u2019s mother\u2019s consent. Moreover, there is evidence that the gun was in plain view. Since he could not win a motion to suppress, there was no prejudice. Beale v. United States, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22522 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 24, 2016).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A defendant who loses his cell phone at the scene of a crime has abandoned it by not safeguarding his privacy. This was 2009, and, besides, Riley doesn\u2019t apply to abandoned phones. United States v. Quashie, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS … Continue reading