A state search warrant was used to prosecute in federal court. Defendant raised numerous state law defects to the warrant that did not constitute Fourth Amendment violations. \u201cEven if these warrants were procedurally deficient under state law, Gray has supplied no reason why suppression would be the appropriate response in federal court.\u201d United States v. Gray, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103103 (W.D. Ky. June 10, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The police obtained a key to the common door of an apartment building to conduct a dog sniff of defendant\u2019s apartment door to get a warrant for the apartment. Dog sniffs of apartment doors were approved by this circuit in 2010. Moreover, the good faith exception applies. United States v. Garrett, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102440 (D. Minn. June 10, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant had no standing in the cell phone of another. (His own cell phone search was suppressed before trial.) Smith v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102557 (M.D. Ala. June 10, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A state search warrant was used to prosecute in federal court. Defendant raised numerous state law defects to the warrant that did not constitute Fourth Amendment violations. \u201cEven if these warrants were procedurally deficient under state law, Gray has supplied … Continue reading