\u201cThe Court concludes the test-firing of the weapon was a search. It was test-fired for one sole purpose and that was to gain identifying data on the retained shell casing for subsequent submission to a database of shell casings obtained from crime scenes and test-fires. While the Court finds the action of the SPD constituted a search, it also finds that the search was a reasonable administrative procedure to identify the firearm that was lawfully in police custody. Under these circumstances the Court finds that the government had a substantial and legitimate interest in uniquely identifying a firearm in its custody. The government is entitled to know the characteristics of a deadly weapon.\u201d United States v. Wondie, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73109 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 15, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A trail camera in Canada near the Montana border transmitted real time to CBP officers and provided reasonable suspicion of defendant\u2019s border crossing which resulted in a 76 mile chase. The seizure of defendant\u2019s cell phone from the car was reasonable, and it was searched with a warrant. United States v. Neil, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73072 (D. Mont. Apr. 15, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cThe Court concludes the test-firing of the weapon was a search. It was test-fired for one sole purpose and that was to gain identifying data on the retained shell casing for subsequent submission to a database of shell casings obtained … Continue reading