Defendant\u2019s motion to suppress wasn\u2019t timely, and he had plenty of time to get it filed and didn\u2019t give an excuse or even mention it being late. \u201cLarge volumes of discovery can indeed constitute good cause for addressing a motion’s merits despite its untimeliness. … But nothing of the sort exists here. The Government represented — and defense counsel did not contest — that it produced a relatively small number of documents, and it estimated the video footage to last approximately 1.5 hours, not 3 to 4. In actuality, the videos total less than one hour.\u201d But, \u201c[e]ven if untimeliness is excused, Moss has not shown that he had the requisite privacy interest in the vehicle which he occupied to contest the constitutionality of the police entry or search of that vehicle.\u201d \u201cUntimeliness and standing issues aside, the entirety of the circumstances establishes that the officers committed no Fourth Amendment violation at all, much less one that aggrieved Moss.\u201d United States v. Moss, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95910 (S.D.Ga. July 21, 2016).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s motion to suppress wasn\u2019t timely, and he had plenty of time to get it filed and didn\u2019t give an excuse or even mention it being late. \u201cLarge volumes of discovery can indeed constitute good cause for addressing a motion’s … Continue reading