The government\u2019s untimely discovery response to defendant\u2019s repeated requests for the product of his cell phone search doesn\u2019t warrant dismissal of the indictment. Probable cause was shown for the cell phone search, and the motion to suppress is denied. United States v. Mason, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115769 (S.D. Ind. June 30, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s frisk during a traffic stop after he left a drug house monitored by the DEA was reasonable. \u201cAfter the stop, Radford immediately behaved in a manner that would have alarmed any police officer. He failed to follow a directive to put down his phone, reached for a second phone after that directive, made quick movements with his hands while he was still in the car and after he exited, reached for his waistband more than once, and held his left arm stiffly and close to his side as if hiding something on that part of his body. The district court characterized Radford’s behavior as \u2018nervous and at times noncompliant.\u2019 As Maples tried to gain control of the situation, Radford never stopped moving, even as Maples told him that his movements were making the officer nervous. The indications from DEA surveillance that Radford might be involved in drug dealing, his nervous behavior and alarming movements, and his failure to comply with the officer’s directives all justified the officer’s decision to search for weapons.\u201d A vacuum sealed bag of heroin was seen in plain view. United States v. Radford<\/a>, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 18156 (7th Cir. June 30, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n Franks challenge fails to search warrant for not including a claim that defendant might have been in another state at the time of the crime. \u201cNone of Defendant’s arguments cite a shred of reliable evidence that Detective DiNardo (or, for that matter, any other police officer or the federal probation officer) knew or should have known by November 17 that Defendant was in Florida at the time of the shootings on November 4.\u201d United States v. Harmon, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115528 (D. Del. June 29, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The government\u2019s untimely discovery response to defendant\u2019s repeated requests for the product of his cell phone search doesn\u2019t warrant dismissal of the indictment. Probable cause was shown for the cell phone search, and the motion to suppress is denied. United … Continue reading