Defendant is not entitled to return of electronic devices and media containing child pornography because of the mere possibility that the contraband could be recovered from it even after erasure. United States v. Buttercase, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125078 (D. Neb. July 16, 2020).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Comparing the video with enhancement, the court can\u2019t make out what the transcript provided says. That might create a false sense of what was said. But, for various \u201creasons, the Court finds credible Agent Perry’s testimony that he did not hear Defendant tell him he was asleep and so Perry did not violate Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights by continuing the encounter and asking Defendant for identification.\u201d The encounter remained consensual. \u201cThe Court also finds, based on the evidence and testimony, that Defendant consented to a search of the plastic bag with his response, \u2018Go for it.\u2019 Therefore, Agent Perry’s search of the plastic bag did not violate Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights.\u201d United States v. Rodriguez, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124525 (D.N.M. July 15, 2020).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant is not entitled to return of electronic devices and media containing child pornography because of the mere possibility that the contraband could be recovered from it even after erasure. United States v. Buttercase, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125078 (D. … Continue reading