Considering the four factors to consider in the delay in searching defendant\u2019s cell phone, all the factors favor him. As to the exclusionary rule, \u201cBecause there is an \u2018appreciable deterrent value\u2019 in suppressing the evidence from the 9\/15\/22 Warrant, as it will dissuade law enforcement from future delays, Smith, 967 F.3d at 212, the court GRANTS Mr. Delima’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained from Cell Phones 1 and 2 pursuant to the 9\/15\/22 Warrant under Smith.\u201d As to a second phone, suppression is denied. United States v. Delima, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201552 (D. Vt. Nov. 9, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
VA employees have no reasonable expectation of privacy in work emails, even with their lawyer. Sickels v. McDonough, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201554 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 9, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Despite some proof of pretext, the stop had an objective basis for violation of traffic laws. The grant of the motion to suppress is reversed. State v. Goodpasture, 2023-Ohio-4060 (2d Dist. Nov. 9, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Considering the four factors to consider in the delay in searching defendant\u2019s cell phone, all the factors favor him. As to the exclusionary rule, \u201cBecause there is an \u2018appreciable deterrent value\u2019 in suppressing the evidence from the 9\/15\/22 Warrant, as … Continue reading