Delays in the case were to work out a plea agreement, not file motions. For that reason, the motion to suppress is denied. On the merits, the 40 day delay in seeking a warrant for his cell phone was reasonable because he was in custody and couldn\u2019t possess it anyway. United States v. Jackson, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100549 (E.D. Wis. June 9, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The stop was unreasonably prolonged without reasonable suspicion, and the subsequent search of the car is suppressed. United States v. Pavao, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100590 (D.R.I. June 9, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s claims of physical abuse during the execution of the search warrant on his property were not new and were litigated before. Commonwealth v. Reeves, 2023 PA Super 98, 2023 Pa. Super. LEXIS 249 (June 9, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s claim the CI was not adequately supported was already litigated in this case in a motion by former counsel. Not again. United States v. Alexander, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100424 (D. Alaska June 9, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delays in the case were to work out a plea agreement, not file motions. For that reason, the motion to suppress is denied. On the merits, the 40 day delay in seeking a warrant for his cell phone was reasonable … Continue reading