Defendant\u2019s arrest outside his house near his front door did not justify a protective sweep of his house. \u201cIndeed, this Court finds that the marshals’ broad search of the Westberry residence was conducted specifically to find the firearm. \u2026 Because the firearm was discovered during an unlawful protective sweep, the Fourth Amendment requires that the evidence be suppressed.\u201d United States v. Westberry, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75914 (D. N.J. Apr. 30, 2020).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s motion for discovery of how the government learned of his IP address in this Playpen child pornography is granted. Defendant avers that the IP address could have been captured by a computer intrusion and malware. The government denies that\u2019s how it happened, but it has to answer. United States v. Mitrovich, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75978 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 30, 2020).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for not moving to suppress defendant\u2019s cell phone search that occurred a year before Riley because the good faith exception would apply. United States v. Kearn, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75963 (D. Kan. Apr. 30, 2020).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s arrest outside his house near his front door did not justify a protective sweep of his house. \u201cIndeed, this Court finds that the marshals’ broad search of the Westberry residence was conducted specifically to find the firearm. \u2026 Because … Continue reading