Defendant alleges that NCMEC or the police expanded a private search. \u201cHowever, Defendant concedes that he has no knowledge or evidence that either NCMEC or the police expanded the scope of the Facebook search. \u2026 Therefore, Defendant cannot assert that the Fourth Amendment is, in fact, implicated.\u201d United States v. Young, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190017 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cAt that point, Deputy Morten had enough information to issue a traffic citation but instead prolonged the stop on the basis of his knowledge of Larson’s prior convictions and his observing movements consistent with concealing an object under the front passenger seat, witnessing Larson’s \u2018jumpy\u2019 and \u2018evasive\u2019 behavior, and learning of their indirect route and suspicious sightseeing justification. We conclude these factors support the finding that there was \u2018ample, competent evidence in the record \u2026 that raised reasonable suspicion\u2019 to expand the stop into a drug investigation.\u201d State v. Marsolek<\/a>, 2021 ND 175, 2021 N.D. LEXIS 175 (Sept. 30, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n Admissions a defendant made to the officer asking questions recorded by bodycam are not private communications under the wiretap statute. Mally v. State, 2021 Md. App. LEXIS 877 (Sept. 30, 2021) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant alleges that NCMEC or the police expanded a private search. \u201cHowever, Defendant concedes that he has no knowledge or evidence that either NCMEC or the police expanded the scope of the Facebook search. \u2026 Therefore, Defendant cannot assert that … Continue reading