Officers got a state search warrant for defendant\u2019s cell phone for drugs and stumbled upon child pornography otherwise linked to him by his tattoos and voice. He admits the warrant was valid for drugs. A later federal search warrant was issued for the phone for child exploitation. There was no Franks violation. \u201c[I]n seeking the warrant, law enforcement was acted prudently and cautiously to make certain that searches unrelated to drug trafficking were authorized. In summary, the Court does not view Mr. Deschambault’s objections to the Townsend affidavit as pointing to misleading or false representations nor does the Court find that Mr. Deschambault has generated sufficient doubt about the accuracy of the Townsend affidavit to justify a Franks hearing.\u201d United States v. Deschambault, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172464 (D.Me. Sept. 21, 2020).* [And it hardly required 46\u00bd pages to say that.]<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Carpenter isn\u2019t retroactive, so a person convicted before it who didn\u2019t plead it gets no post-conviction relief. Taylor v. State, 2020 Nev. Unpub. LEXIS 875 (Sept. 18, 2020).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Officers got a state search warrant for defendant\u2019s cell phone for drugs and stumbled upon child pornography otherwise linked to him by his tattoos and voice. He admits the warrant was valid for drugs. A later federal search warrant was … Continue reading