The protective sweep of defendant\u2019s motel room was reasonable, and it was also justified by a search waiver. There was a woman in the room who was not the defendant they were looking for. United States v. Banegas, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68104 (N.D. Okla. Apr. 8, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant wasn\u2019t entitled to a warning of the right to refuse consent. Still, on the totality, he consented to a stop, conversation, and then search of his bag after being spotted on an Amtrak train. He drew attention because his bag was under his feet instead of overhead. United States v. Thompson, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68123 (W.D. Mo. Apr. 8, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant didn\u2019t raise application of the exclusionary rule below to his violation of supervised release, so it\u2019s waived. And, even if raised, it doesn\u2019t apply there. United States v. Smalley<\/a>, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 10109 (8th Cir. Apr. 8, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The protective sweep of defendant\u2019s motel room was reasonable, and it was also justified by a search waiver. There was a woman in the room who was not the defendant they were looking for. United States v. Banegas, 2021 U.S. … Continue reading