Defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her backpack in a city work vehicle despite a city policy that city work vehicles can\u2019t be used for illegal purposes. Consent to search the backpack could not be given by defendant\u2019s supervisors. The anonymous tip the city received didn\u2019t rise to the level of probable cause to search the backpack. Motion to suppress granted. United States v. Williams, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177439 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 16, 2018).<\/p>\n
One of defendant\u2019s post-conviction claims that defense counsel failed to fully litigate a motion to suppress admissibility of a recorded jail call when defendant was incarcerated in California. California law was more restrictive than Tennessee law on the question, and the conversation would be admissible in California in prosecution for a violent crime, which the Tennessee prosecution was. In any event, defendant pled guilty and waived the search and seizure claim, and he didn\u2019t show defense counsel was ineffective. Townsend v. State<\/a>, 2018 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 774 (Oct. 16, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her backpack in a city work vehicle despite a city policy that city work vehicles can\u2019t be used for illegal purposes. Consent to search the backpack could not be given by defendant\u2019s … Continue reading