There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in bank records, and the government can obtain them to enforce a restitution order. United States v. Osborn, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90076 (D. Colo. May 23, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant doesn\u2019t get a Franks hearing because he both lacked standing and didn\u2019t make the proper showing. United States v. Taylor, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90911 (E.D. Mich. May 24, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Even assuming the trial court erred in not instructing on the Texas statutory exclusionary rule, defendant can\u2019t show prejudice because the legality of the police action was essentially an element of the crime tried. Tates v. State, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 3572 (Tex. App. \u2013 Corpus Christi – Edinburg May 25, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A renewed motion to suppress filed as the trial began, along with disrespectful tone (\u201cYou don\u2019t understand the argument.\u201d) and arguing with and talking over the judge results in sanctions. Disciplinary Counsel v. Stobbs, 2023-Ohio-1719, 2023 Ohio LEXIS 1081 (May 25, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in bank records, and the government can obtain them to enforce a restitution order. United States v. Osborn, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90076 (D. Colo. May 23, 2023). Defendant doesn\u2019t get a Franks … Continue reading