Defendant\u2019s letting the CI into his house was a waiver of any Fourth Amendment claim about the CI. United States v. Johnson, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7156 (M.D. Tenn. January 25, 2011).*<\/p>\n
The car defendant was in was stopped, and they were removed from the car and detained for a while. The driver\u2019s consent to search the car was not relevant to the finding of the gun in defendant\u2019s pocket since consent did not lead to it. Brendlin<\/a> does not alter Rakas<\/a>. United States v. McColley, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7181 (M.D. Tenn. January 25, 2011).*<\/p>\n The search was valid and the defendant did not even challenge the consent of the third party. And that\u2019s assuming that he had standing. United States v. Hancock, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7591 (E.D. N.C. January 25, 2011).*<\/p>\n Defendant\u2019s business was submitting monthly false statements to the FDIC and seemingly all a fraud, and that justified a broad search warrant, which the court does not find unconstitutionally overbroad. Still, the good faith exception would save the warrant anyway. United States v. Hergert, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140470 (D. Neb. December 30, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading