A tracking order was issued on probable cause to locate defendant after available public sources didn\u2019t locate him. He argues for a \u201cless intrusive means\u201d type test, which it isn\u2019t called, but the argument fails because the government tried that. In addition, he doesn\u2019t show the amount of time tracking was unreasonable. No case says it would be. United States v. Grant, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205050 (W.D.Ky. Oct. 25, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201c[T]he Court notes that Officer Toth testified that he informed Ms. Woods that, if she refused to consent to a search, Officer Toth would apply for and attempt to obtain a search warrant for the residence. He further testified that, prior to Mesha Woods signing the Voluntary Consent to Search Form, Officer Toth explained to Ms. Woods that anything found in the residence would be charged accordingly, and that the officers were mandated reporters that were required to report anything that placed children in danger. The Court finds that Officer Toth’s description of the possible consequences of the search at issue to Ms. Woods in this case does not, in this instance, render Mesha Woods’ consent involuntarily given.\u201d The officer was credible. United States v. Woods, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204803 (W.D.Pa. Oct. 25, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s traffic offenses justified his stop. United States v. Reed, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204760 (S.D.Ohio Oct. 25, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A tracking order was issued on probable cause to locate defendant after available public sources didn\u2019t locate him. He argues for a \u201cless intrusive means\u201d type test, which it isn\u2019t called, but the argument fails because the government tried that. … Continue reading