On a motion to reconsider, the court finds that since defendant didn\u2019t object to the consent of another under Randolph, it doesn\u2019t apply. Also, once they had consent from somebody, they didn\u2019t have to ask others. A safe was also searched. The court finds the officers more credible that the door was ajar and they could see in, not that it was locked. Defendant gets no credibility: \u201cMr. Jones has already lied on multiple occasions in multiple respects in relation to this matter.\u201d United States v. Jones, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84108 (N.D.Ind. June 21, 2016).*<\/p>\n
Defense counsel was not ineffective for not arguing the breadth of search warrants for cell phones that were seized and searched under a warrant. One contact name was all that was used at trial from all that. He admits there was probable cause for the cell phone warrant; he only challenged overbreadth of the search without saying sufficiently how. United States v. Bell, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87122 (E.D.Pa. July 5, 2016).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
On a motion to reconsider, the court finds that since defendant didn\u2019t object to the consent of another under Randolph, it doesn\u2019t apply. Also, once they had consent from somebody, they didn\u2019t have to ask others. A safe was also … Continue reading