\u201cIn co-defendant Johnlouis’s case, our court upheld the denial of the motion to suppress because we determined that the letter carrier was \u2018not a government actor to whom the Fourth Amendment applies.\u2019 United States v. Johnlouis, 44 F.4th 331, 337 (5th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 834 (2023).\u201d United States v. Felton, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 10708 (5th Cir. May 2, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s social media account was registered to his IP address and his car was parked outside. That\u2019s probable cause when he victimized a 6-year-old child by pictures. United States v. Blanco, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 10650 (9th Cir. May 2, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
14-month-old information to NCMEC wasn\u2019t stale. It was reasonable to believe it would be stored by defendant. Information from Microsoft off Skype wasn\u2019t treated as a traditional CI. The informaation was reliable. Ehrhardt v. State, 2023 Miss. App. LEXIS 168 (May 2, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Driving without headlights justifies a stop. United States v. Pryor, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75954 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 6, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cIn co-defendant Johnlouis’s case, our court upheld the denial of the motion to suppress because we determined that the letter carrier was \u2018not a government actor to whom the Fourth Amendment applies.\u2019 United States v. Johnlouis, 44 F.4th 331, 337 … Continue reading