The USMJ who issued the search warrant doesn\u2019t need to recuse from deciding on a motion to suppress that warrant. \u201cThe Court also concludes that Strieff controls the analysis of Defendant’s challenge to his stop in Rock Island, Illinois. In Strieff, the United States Supreme Court held \u2018that the evidence the officer seized as part of the search incident to arrest is admissible because the officer’s discovery of the arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the evidence seized incident to arrest.\u2019 136 S. Ct. at 2059. A hearing on the constitutionality of the stop is therefore unnecessary because even assuming the stop was unconstitutional, the cell phones collected from Defendant during the arrest are admissible as evidence seized incident to arrest.\u201d There was probable cause to seize the phones. United States v. Mathis, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145380 (D. Minn. Aug. 27, 2018).<\/p>\n
Defendant claimed standing in the car he was in by claiming a possessory interest. Only he didn\u2019t. United States v. Dixon<\/a>, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 23951 (11th Cir. Aug. 24, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The USMJ who issued the search warrant doesn\u2019t need to recuse from deciding on a motion to suppress that warrant. \u201cThe Court also concludes that Strieff controls the analysis of Defendant’s challenge to his stop in Rock Island, Illinois. In … Continue reading