When defendant came to the door and answered the officers\u2019 knock, and moved into the threshold when they said they were \u201csecurity forces,\u201d he was subject to arrest right there without the officers violating the privacy of the home. They also had probably cause to arrest him. United States v. Roberts, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182696 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 17, 2019).<\/p>\n
Defendant claims his lawyer in his 2255 was ineffective for not pursuing a motion to suppress for him, but he can\u2019t show that it would be meritorious. Kitroser v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182578 (S.D. N.Y. Oct. 22, 2019).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s computer was open for peer-to-peer exchange of child pornography. Therefore, he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his own computer. United States v. Shipton, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182734 (D. Minn. Sept. 21, 2019),* adopted, 019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183010 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2019).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
When defendant came to the door and answered the officers\u2019 knock, and moved into the threshold when they said they were \u201csecurity forces,\u201d he was subject to arrest right there without the officers violating the privacy of the home. They … Continue reading