(1) \u201cAccordingly, although Defendant had the discretion to manage the day-to-day operation of LLB, the Court finds he did not actually manage the day-to-day operations of the business.\u201d \u201cIn this context, ownership of premises alone does not automatically confer standing. Therefore, while the Court considers Defendant ultimately owns the building the Sunset Office was located within, it does not assign dispositive weight to his ownership.\u201d Defendant does not have standing to challenge searches of offices of employees within the building. (2) Omission of the entirety of the CI\u2019s criminal history isn\u2019t material when the CI is fully corroborated. United States v. Bradford, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158330 (D. Nev. Sep. 6, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The officer had reasonable suspicion defendant\u2019s DL was still suspended in Missouri because he was still in North Dakota apparently since the last stop. United States v. Cartwright, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157742 (D.N.D. Sep. 6, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In seeking a CoA from denial of a 2254, failure to seek recusal of the trial judge because he signed the search warrant, too, is not a ground for reversal under Tennessee law [let alone the Fourth Amendment]. Harris v. Fitz, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 23755 (6th Cir. Sep. 6, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s stop for littering was reasonable. He was obligated to identify himself when stopped. His picking up the trash doesn\u2019t end the investigation. United States v. Thomas, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158101 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
(1) \u201cAccordingly, although Defendant had the discretion to manage the day-to-day operation of LLB, the Court finds he did not actually manage the day-to-day operations of the business.\u201d \u201cIn this context, ownership of premises alone does not automatically confer standing. … Continue reading