The government seized 1.3M documents, and 21 apparently were privileged. This doesn\u2019t show that the government was willful disregarding the warrant or the need to protect privileged materials. His iPhone and laptop were properly seized by plain view then subjected to a search warrant. United States v. Sharma, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136584 (S.D. N.Y. Aug. 14, 2019).<\/p>\n
Plaintiff\u2019s complaint isn\u2019t a model of advocacy, but it sufficiently alleges to survive summary judgment for now that the officer and the CI set him up for false arrest. Howl v. Alvarado<\/a>, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 24156 (10th Cir. Aug. 14, 2019).*<\/p>\n Defendant was visiting his mother while on supervised release. She consented to a search of the whole property. He apparently didn\u2019t get the opportunity to make a Randolph objection: \u201ca mere overnight guest’s objection to a search does not override the consent of a tenant, occupant, or resident with a possessory interest in the property.\u201d United States v. Lopez, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136615 (D. Conn. Aug. 14, 2019).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The government seized 1.3M documents, and 21 apparently were privileged. This doesn\u2019t show that the government was willful disregarding the warrant or the need to protect privileged materials. His iPhone and laptop were properly seized by plain view then subjected … Continue reading