Defendant was on supervised release for child pornography and he had a cell phone not listed with US Probation. The phone was seen during a home visit. The PO picked up the phone and turned it on and a picture of a young child appeared. The phone was seized because of the plain view and it was a valid seizure. United States v. McGill, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184535 (N.D.Ill. Nov. 7, 2017).<\/p>\n
Just because there\u2019s an inconsistency between the two officers in their reports, that\u2019s not enough to justify a hearing. The reports show that the officers had reasonable suspicion for the stop. United States v. Bass, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186942 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2017).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant was on supervised release for child pornography and he had a cell phone not listed with US Probation. The phone was seen during a home visit. The PO picked up the phone and turned it on and a picture … Continue reading