In a federal case, defendant\u2019s argument the state Constitution was violated in his search means nothing in a federal criminal prosecution. The search was valid under the Fourth Amendment\u2019s collective knowledge doctrine, and it was properly limited in scope. United States v. Rodriguez-Garcia, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155105 (D. Mass. Sep. 1, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The state search warrant application showed probable cause for a warrant for defendant\u2019s devices for internet communication with a minor. United States v. Bowles, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157424 (E.D. Mo. July 17, 2023),* adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156318 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 5, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s license plate light being out, visible on two videos, justified this stop. State v. Moss, 2023 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 333 (Sep. 5, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant did not abandon the key fob to this car. It was intercepted by the police. He retained a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car. People v. Canady, 2023 NY Slip Op 50936(U) (Kings Co. Sept. 5, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In a federal case, defendant\u2019s argument the state Constitution was violated in his search means nothing in a federal criminal prosecution. The search was valid under the Fourth Amendment\u2019s collective knowledge doctrine, and it was properly limited in scope. United … Continue reading