Three adults worked to get access to defendant\u2019s cell phone because he was sexting a minor. \u201cMoreover, even assuming solely for the sake of argument that Dustin Clark had wrongfully taken Minor A’s phone from Defendant Walsh and Deputy Bennett knew it, Dustin Clark’s status as a private actor in taking Minor A’s phone, whether \u2018innocent or deliberate … reasonable or unreasonable,\u2019 does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Even if, Deputy Bennett knew Dustin Clark had previously improperly taken Minor A’s phone from Defendant Walsh at the time Dustin Clark showed him the phone, that does not mean Deputy Bennett acquiesced before hand in the intrusive conduct by Dustin Clark.\u201d [Besides, he doesn\u2019t have standing in the minor\u2019s cell phone. United States v. Walsh, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225094 (D. Minn. Dec. 6, 2019),* adopted, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7960 (D. Minn. Jan. 17, 2020).*<\/p>\n
Fourth Amendment claims can\u2019t be a basis of habeas in California. In re Favor, 2020 Cal. LEXIS 236 (Jan. 2, 2020).\t\t\t<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Three adults worked to get access to defendant\u2019s cell phone because he was sexting a minor. \u201cMoreover, even assuming solely for the sake of argument that Dustin Clark had wrongfully taken Minor A’s phone from Defendant Walsh and Deputy Bennett … Continue reading