There was probable cause for the four search warrants here. \u201cMuch of Martinez’s arguments are based on the premise that the warrants are unsupported by probable cause because the affidavits did not prove the elements of the target crimes.\u201d They aren\u2019t required to. United States v. Martinez, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92985 (D. Nev. May 22, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
UPS was a private searcher when it searched defendant\u2019s package in transit. It did not acquiesce in what the government wanted. \u201cNotably, there was no evidence presented of any reason UPS had to acquiesce to any suggested search by the officer, or that Brown received or felt any pressure to do so. Nor was there any evidence to suggest that UPS had reason to curry favor with the police in this effort. Indeed, while the witnesses differed in their recollection of how many times UPS declined to search packages in similar circumstances, both Brown and Jones testified that UPS (and Brown specifically) has done so on other occasions. It is also relevant that UPS is a large, sophisticated corporation, and that Brown specifically had decades of experience in corporate security. It is not likely that they would feel pressure or intimidation from the presence of a policeman and the evidence does not suggest that they did.\u201d United States v. Baxter, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93141 (N.D. Ga. May 11, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
There was probable cause for the four search warrants here. \u201cMuch of Martinez’s arguments are based on the premise that the warrants are unsupported by probable cause because the affidavits did not prove the elements of the target crimes.\u201d They … Continue reading