The government\u2019s grand jury subpoena for defendant\u2019s cell phone passcode is quashed because it seeks testimonial information in violation of the Fifth Amendment showing defendant\u2019s knowledge of the contents of the phone. “The Court denies Gray’s Rule 41(g) motion. Even assuming arguendo that the iPhone is Gray’s, Gray has not shown that the iPhone’s initial seizure was illegal or the Government’s need for it as potential evidence has ended.” United States v. Gray, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64314 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defense counsel can\u2019t be ineffective for not arguing a suppression motion that wasn\u2019t shown to be meritorious. Rangel-Ramirez v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64469 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 9, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Rodriguez moment here: \u201cThe video corroborates Trooper Francis’s testimony that he was in the process of running traffic-related checks when, at 17:38, Trooper Borelli interrupted him to report that Caraballo’s statements concerning his itinerary were false. If that information provided reasonable suspicion that Caraballo had narcotics in the SUV, his continued detention was not unlawful.\u201d United States v. Caraballo, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64486 (D. Conn. Apr. 9, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The government\u2019s grand jury subpoena for defendant\u2019s cell phone passcode is quashed because it seeks testimonial information in violation of the Fifth Amendment showing defendant\u2019s knowledge of the contents of the phone. “The Court denies Gray’s Rule 41(g) motion. Even … Continue reading