The \u201cplace of residence\u201d for a parole search of an absconder includes a motel room he\u2019s staying in. He also has no standing to challenge a search of a trash can outside the room. United States v. Nichols, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209269 (E.D. Ark. Nov. 17, 2022). [As I’ve explained to clients, “you can’t move around just to avoid a parole search.”]<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Codefendant doesn\u2019t have standing to challenge entry and search of a hotel room she apparently was just visiting in. \u201cRather, she appears to concede that Stacy Clinton rented the room. And she doesn’t contest that the search occurred in the middle of the day. There is no indication that she was an overnight guest. On these facts, Anthony cannot claim a reasonable expectation of privacy in the room.\u201d United States v. Anthony, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209267 (E.D. Ark. Nov. 16, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The protective sweep of defendant\u2019s car was based on reasonable suspicion he could be armed. United States v. Ross, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207657 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 16, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe Court here does not need to determine whether the provisions of the warrant lacked sufficient particularization because even if the warrant was overbroad, the good faith exception applies.\u201d United States v. Moss, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209261 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 15, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The \u201cplace of residence\u201d for a parole search of an absconder includes a motel room he\u2019s staying in. He also has no standing to challenge a search of a trash can outside the room. United States v. Nichols, 2022 U.S. … Continue reading