\u201cThe fact that the Government intends to prove that the property belongs to Defendant does not establish standing. See, United States v. Watson, 404 F.3d 163, 166 (2d Cir. 2005) (\u2018[D]efendant could not challenge the search of a residence merely because he anticipated that the Government will link the objects recovered in that search to defendant at trial.\u2019); United States v. Tartaglione, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32382, 2023 WL 2237903, at 10 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2023) (\u2018The Government’s efforts to connect a defendant to the subject of a search do not suffice to establish standing.\u2019)\u201d United States v. Rodriguez-Genao, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54287 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Flight is not per se suspicious, but officers had reasonable suspicion here when they approached him. One said they had a warrant for his arrest, but didn\u2019t. Whether this was a mistake or a lie doesn\u2019t matter here because there was reasonable suspicion. Defendant fled and was finally tackled and apprehended. United States v. Hamilton, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6783 (9th Cir. Mar. 24, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Just because defendant was in custody doesn\u2019t mean he couldn\u2019t consent to a search. State v. Ellis, 2025-Ohio-1014 (11th Dist. Mar. 24, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cThe fact that the Government intends to prove that the property belongs to Defendant does not establish standing. See, United States v. Watson, 404 F.3d 163, 166 (2d Cir. 2005) (\u2018[D]efendant could not challenge the search of a residence merely … Continue reading