Defendant computer supervisor had a REP in office and computer areas. “Hylton’s use of the supervisor’s area, Costin’s office, and the Server Room to store personal items demonstrates his subjective expectation of privacy in these areas. This expectation was also objectively reasonable, because the supervisor’s area was extremely close to his private desk and was clearly separated from the general shared work areas in the office, and only he and Costin had access to her office and the Server Room. Even if Hylton did not have a traditional property interest in the office, his high-ranking supervisory position also suggests that he reasonably expected privacy in those areas that were exclusively for his use and the use of the owner of the corporation with whom he worked closely. [\u00b6] Although Hylton has demonstrated a legitimate expectation of privacy in the supervisors’ area and Costin’s office, he has not demonstrated a similar expectation with respect to any other parts of the DataUSA office.” United States v. Costin, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52051 (D. Conn. July 31, 2006).<\/p>\n
Tampa federal court reaffirms injunction against suspicionless patdowns at NFL games. “BEFORE THE COURT is Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider, Vacate, and Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 7) and Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition (Dkt. 23). Argument on Defendant’s motion was heard on July 13, 2006. After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record before the state court, Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider, Vacate and Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. The mass suspicionless pat-downs implemented by the Tampa Sports Authority (‘TSA’) for NFL games at Raymond James Stadium (‘Stadium’) constitute unreasonable searches under the Florida Constitution and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Johnston v. Saavedra, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52173 (M.D. Fla. July 28, 2006).<\/p>\n
While defendant did not show a sufficient possessory interest in the truck he was driving to have standing, he still had standing to contest his own seizure. When license came back “not on file,” that was reason enough for a stop to inquire. United States v. Hernandez-Velasco, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52220 (D. Utah July 28, 2006).<\/p>\n
Missing inspection sticker was reason enough to stop defendant’s vehicle. Open container led to defendant denying it was his but a former passenger’s, and he consented to entry into car to get it which produced odor or marijuana and a more intensive search. United States v. Washington, 439 F. Supp. 2d 589 (E.D. Va. July 24, 2006).*<\/p>\n
Informant’s information was too thin to support trash seizure by RS in Indiana. Membres v. State, 851 N.E.2d 990 (Ind. App. 2d Dist. July 31, 2006). <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evGMco.b2evALnk.b2WPAutP.b2evSmil Continue reading