Defendant\u2019s house was broken into by neighbors, and they stole things, including a flash drive which defendant had admitted to them in the past had child pornography on it. The police got the flash drive from the neighbor and looked at it and then got a warrant. The first look was illegal, but the warrant had an independent source. United States v. Chapman-Sexton, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15495 (S.D.Ohio Feb. 3, 2017)* [Note that the private search doctrine isn\u2019t applied because the neighbors didn\u2019t look at the flash drive; they just had possession of it.]<\/p>\n
Defendant was on tribal lands and he was stopped by a tribal officer. As soon as the window was rolled down, it was apparent that defendant wasn\u2019t an Indian, but tribes have the authority to keep unwanted persons off their lands. There also was no basis to keep him because no crime had occurred. Defendant\u2019s motion to suppress is granted. United States v. Cooley, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17276 (D.Mont. Feb. 7, 2017).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s house was broken into by neighbors, and they stole things, including a flash drive which defendant had admitted to them in the past had child pornography on it. The police got the flash drive from the neighbor and looked … Continue reading