Merely helping Canadian law enforcement comply with an MLAT request from the United States was not a joint venture. United States v. Kachkar, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222738 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2020).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s cell phone was seized at the border when she crossed from Mexico. On the totality, defendant\u2019s consent to search her cell phone was valid because there was also probable cause because drugs had already been found in the car. As to a search warrant: \u201cMs. Marquez also argues that the Government’s delay in obtaining a search warrant was unreasonable. The Court concludes that the delay was not unreasonable in light of Ms. Marquez’s failure to allege, much less prove, that delay adversely affected her possessory interest and the Government’s strong interest in preserving evidence.\u201d United States v. Marquez, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222533 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2020).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Merely helping Canadian law enforcement comply with an MLAT request from the United States was not a joint venture. United States v. Kachkar, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222738 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2020). Defendant\u2019s cell phone was seized at the … Continue reading