Appellant\u2019s motion to reopen his appeal to reargue his Fourth Amendment claims is denied. Not one thing he proffers can change the outcome of the appeal. There was a basis for a GPS warrant on his vehicle, and there was probable cause for the stop and search. And he arguably had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the location information sent from the laptop he stole and which brought the police to him, based on information from the victim. That brought the police, and he fled in his car and crashed it. State v. Boyce, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 187 (10th Dist. Jan. 25, 2022), direct appeal 2021-Ohio-712, 2021 Ohio App. LEXIS 718 (10th Dist. Mar. 11, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant moved to exclude jail telephone calls that led to a search warrant of defendant\u2019s cell because he had discovery with him he was talking about in the calls and sought to post it on Facebook. The motion is based on Rule 401 and 403 lack of relevance or more prejudicial than relevant. Denied in part. United States v. Snow, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15388 (W.D.Va. Jan. 26, 2022).* (I have a client who posted the jury instruction on the testifying informant on Facebook a week before trial. She\u2019s going to get a 2 level obstruction enhancement for attempting to intimidate a witness.)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Appellant\u2019s motion to reopen his appeal to reargue his Fourth Amendment claims is denied. Not one thing he proffers can change the outcome of the appeal. There was a basis for a GPS warrant on his vehicle, and there was … Continue reading