The court finds defendant lacked standing in a car he claims to have rented through Turo from the owner. The innocent driver of car stolen by someone else could have standing, but he doesn\u2019t even get there. The rental couldn\u2019t be proved by Turo. United States v. Thomas, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15107 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2024), adopting 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16249 (D.Nev. Jan. 11, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The state officers obtained four warrants for defendant\u2019s places and things. The product of the unchallenged first led to the others for which there was probable cause. The second warrant claimed a Franks violation, but materiality wasn\u2019t shown. United States v. Hollins, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13337 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 24, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One officer relayed that defendant committed a traffic violation for the stop. The officer making the stop then saw two more violations, obviating collective knowledge. United States v. Alfred, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233889 (W.D. La. Dec. 18, 2023),* adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12471 (W.D. La. Jan. 23, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The 64-page DEA Task Force Officer\u2019s affidavit for warrant showed probable cause. United States v. Marshall, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14978 (E.D. Wis. Jan. 29, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The court finds defendant lacked standing in a car he claims to have rented through Turo from the owner. The innocent driver of car stolen by someone else could have standing, but he doesn\u2019t even get there. The rental couldn\u2019t … Continue reading