The district court\u2019s finding of fact is not clearly erroneous. The officer said he said \u201cplease\u201d and defendant said he said \u201cHey, man. \u2026 Hey, come here,\u201d and when defendant continued to walk, the officer supposedly yelled, \u201cHey, man, I said come here.\u201d \u201cThe body camera video gives further support to Officer Hodge’s version of events and to the district court’s conclusion that the search was consensual.\u201d United States v. Gyurnek, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 40806 (6th Cir. Dec. 30, 2020).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A three month lag between the government obtaining child pornography and linking it to defendant\u2019s IP address in a search warrant affidavit wasn\u2019t stale. [Perhaps if he could show he wasn\u2019t living there three months ago?] Besides, the good faith exception exception applies. United States v. Pace, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 243541 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 29, 2020).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The district court\u2019s finding of fact is not clearly erroneous. The officer said he said \u201cplease\u201d and defendant said he said \u201cHey, man. \u2026 Hey, come here,\u201d and when defendant continued to walk, the officer supposedly yelled, \u201cHey, man, I … Continue reading