Officers had probable cause and nexus and showed particularity to defendant\u2019s cell phone. He\u2019d previously been accused of recording undressed women and was involved in an upskirting. Here he\u2019d been accused of sex with drugged women and recording some of it. The fourth warrant for the phone was 21 months after it was seized, and defendant had a reduced privacy interest in it for the duration because, as an inmate, he couldn\u2019t possess it. Harvey v. Commonwealth, 2023 Va. App. LEXIS 34 (Jan. 24, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress against this otherwise reasonable inventory search. United States v. Hensley, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 236478 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 29, 2022)* (court also assumed deficient performance to go to the second prong; but that\u2019s not necessary).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant wasn\u2019t entitled to a Texas rule 38.23 jury instruction on illegally obtained evidence where the only testimony was that he was reasonably detained. No fact dispute, no instruction. Ford v. State, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 398 (Tex. App. — Texarkana Jan. 24, 2023).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Officers had probable cause and nexus and showed particularity to defendant\u2019s cell phone. He\u2019d previously been accused of recording undressed women and was involved in an upskirting. Here he\u2019d been accused of sex with drugged women and recording some of … Continue reading