The government got consent to search a package for drugs. That consent did not include cutting a candle in half to find the drugs. Consent to search doesn\u2019t include destruction of property. United States v. Swenton, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75131 (D. Alas. May 3, 2018).<\/p>\n
The possibility of an alleged Franks violation making its way to the grand jury testimony for the indictment isn\u2019t enough to dismiss the indictment. \u201cThe Supreme Court has long held that \u2018an indictment valid on its face\u2019 is not subject to a challenge based on \u2018the reliability or competence of the evidence presented to the grand jury.\u2019 Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250, 254 (1988) (citing Calandra, 414 U.S. at 344-45); …\u201d Moreover, the motion doesn\u2019t allege that the prosecutors had any knowledge of that. United States v. James, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76560 (D. Nev. May 7, 2018).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The government got consent to search a package for drugs. That consent did not include cutting a candle in half to find the drugs. Consent to search doesn\u2019t include destruction of property. United States v. Swenton, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS … Continue reading