During a knock-and-talk, defendant admitted that he had not used a particular cell phone in over a year because it had a cracked screen. He was kicked out of a house and he left it behind with other belongings. Based on his admission, the cases he seeks to fall under are distinguishable, and the court finds he abandoned the phone. United States v. Gregg, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216412 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 14, 2017).<\/p>\n
The decision of state officers to not arrest a co-conspirator at the earliest time was not shown to violate this defendant\u2019s access to evidence or that they acted in bad faith. United States v. Avila, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15900 (D. Colo. Jan. 31, 2018).* [One doesn’t have a right himself to be arrested at the earliest possible time, so how could one complain of another’s delayed arrest?]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
During a knock-and-talk, defendant admitted that he had not used a particular cell phone in over a year because it had a cracked screen. He was kicked out of a house and he left it behind with other belongings. Based … Continue reading