The fact the CI related information that was publicly known doesn\u2019t support the story. \u201cAlthough the Court concludes that the Apple\/iCloud warrant was not supported by probable cause, the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies.\u201d The case was a pay to play scheme of bribery, and the affidavit shows nexus to defendant\u2019s iPhone and iCloud account. The phone was used in furtherance of the scheme. Searching the entire iCloud account was sufficiently limited by specifying the crime that limited it. There is a time limitation because the crime didn\u2019t start until 2015. United States v. Sollars, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121792 (E.D. Mich. July 14, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s location and actions driving in a rural area near Nogales gave reasonable suspicion for an immigration stop. United States v. Taylor, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120967 (D. Ariz. June 21, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There was no motion to suppress, but there were no grounds to suppress. People v. Youngblood, 2023 Mich. App. LEXIS 4938 (July 13, 2023);* People v. Martin, 2023 Mich. App. LEXIS 4933 (July 13, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Just because some information in the application for the warrant was in footnotes, the court won\u2019t assume the issuing magistrate didn\u2019t read them. United States v. Oladipo, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121268 (D. Mass. July 14, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The fact the CI related information that was publicly known doesn\u2019t support the story. \u201cAlthough the Court concludes that the Apple\/iCloud warrant was not supported by probable cause, the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies.\u201d The case was a … Continue reading