The government sought palmprints from this indicted defendant to compare to palmprints on boxes that were recovered in an investigation. The court concludes under Davis v. Mississippi (1969) and Hayes v. Florida (1985) that the standard is reasonable suspicion to compel production, and the government satisfies that burden. United States v. Crawford, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 239455 (E.D.Ky. Dec. 15, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There was a hearing over a warrant for the GPS device in defendant\u2019s van, and the trial court ruled against him. In a bench trial, however, the state never admitted that evidence. It\u2019s not mentioned in the findings of fact, so there is no showing it was relied in the findings. [Therefore, it\u2019s moot.] State v. Taylor<\/a>, 2021 Mo. App. LEXIS 1081 (Dec. 14, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n A hotel\u2019s cleaning staff entered a room that appeared to have been vacated and never used. The manager showed up, too, and he noticed the bed was misaligned on the springs. He moved it back and found a plastic container that appeared to have meth in it. He re-keyed the room and locked out the defendant renter. He called the police, and they looked then obtained a search warrant for full search the room. Defendant was evicted from the room and lost his reasonable expectation of privacy in it, too. United States v. Winder, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 239297 (W.D.Mo. Dec. 15, 2021), adopting 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 240761 (W.D.Mo. Nov. 10, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The government sought palmprints from this indicted defendant to compare to palmprints on boxes that were recovered in an investigation. The court concludes under Davis v. Mississippi (1969) and Hayes v. Florida (1985) that the standard is reasonable suspicion to … Continue reading