Standing to contest a search and seizure issue is not jurisdictional, so the court doesn\u2019t have to decide standing. Going to the merits, there was probable cause for the search warrant for the package arriving by mail, and the delay in getting the warrant was reasonable and explained in court at the suppression hearing. Similarly, the nine-day delay in getting the search warrant for defendant\u2019s phone was reasonable because he was in custody and wouldn\u2019t have possessed it anyway. United States v. Mesa, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204662 (D. Guam Nov. 21, 2019).<\/p>\n
\u201cAppellant consented to the frisk. Where an individual voluntarily consents to a search, the Fourth Amendment is not implicated. Katz v United States, … n.22 …. Appellant responded with a clear and unequivocal \u2018sure\u2019 when the TPD officers asked to frisk him, and the record supports that his consent \u2018was given \u201cfreely and voluntarily.\u201d\u2019\u201d United States v. Brooks<\/a>, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 35426 (9th Cir. Nov. 26, 2019).*<\/p>\n Defense counsel raised multiple search claims at trial but only appealed one. Defendant\u2019s ineffective assistance of counsel claim requires a remand for an evidentiary hearing. Peden v. State<\/a>, 2019 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 757 (Nov. 26, 2019).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Standing to contest a search and seizure issue is not jurisdictional, so the court doesn\u2019t have to decide standing. Going to the merits, there was probable cause for the search warrant for the package arriving by mail, and the delay … Continue reading