Defendant\u2019s Fourth Amendment claim is that he was given no notice that his phones had been searched, citing Virginia law, which is irrelevant in a federal prosecution, even though state officials did all the searching. There\u2019s no constitutional right to notice before the search. United States v. Myrick, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22840 (E.D. Va. Feb. 9, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Trial counsel filed a motion to suppress video found on defendant\u2019s phone in a sexual assault case. It wasn\u2019t litigated, but a favorable resolution was obtained with a guilty plea. Defendant can\u2019t show that he was prejudiced. Bowling v. State, 2023 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 53 (Feb. 10, 2023).* [Sometimes the DA will forego the count with the suppression issue just to resolve the case. Happened to me just three weeks ago. But the client had three other cases.]<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The anonymous caller to the police complained of drug activity going on from within a car in front of his home. Defendant\u2019s car matched the description and was in the place. That\u2019s reasonable suspicion. United States v. Wright, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22785 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 9, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s Fourth Amendment claim is that he was given no notice that his phones had been searched, citing Virginia law, which is irrelevant in a federal prosecution, even though state officials did all the searching. There\u2019s no constitutional right to … Continue reading