A pole camera outside defendant\u2019s business for 50 days was not an unreasonable search. United States v. Harry, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5329 (2d Cir. Mar. 7, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant was improperly denied a hearing. The codefendant had a suppression hearing and lost, and this defendant didn\u2019t have standing as to that one. What transpired there showed defendant couldn\u2019t prevail here, even though he wasn\u2019t participating, because he had no standing to ask questions. A 34-day delay in seeking a search warrant after seizure of cell phones wasn\u2019t unreasonable. United States v. Pierce, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38690 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant had no standing in a trash container where work clothes were stashed with his DNA on it. People v. Contreras, 2025 NY Slip Op 50289(U), 2025 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1213 (Queens Co. Feb. 10, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Granted that there was a misstatement in the affidavit, the reconstructed affidavit still provides probable cause. United States v. Clark, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41079 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 7, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A pole camera outside defendant\u2019s business for 50 days was not an unreasonable search. United States v. Harry, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5329 (2d Cir. Mar. 7, 2025). Defendant was improperly denied a hearing. The codefendant had a suppression hearing … Continue reading