Defendant was a suspect in a driveby shooting. Because defendant\u2019s social media showed firearms, it was a fair inference that evidence of the offense or the social media posts would be on his phone. Therefore, there was probable cause for the cell phone. Llanas v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 2503 (Tex. App. \u2013 Austin Apr. 11, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant didn\u2019t effectively waive his right to appeal, but it doesn\u2019t matter because he loses on the merits of his search claim. People v. Peguero, 2025 NY Slip Op 02134 (1st Dept. Apr. 10, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant owned the vehicle searched, but it had been loaned to another at the time of the search. It would appear he should have standing in the vehicle, but that doesn\u2019t have to be decided because the search was valid under the automobile exception, standing or not. United States v. Hightower, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68363 (D. Md. Apr. 10, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
After defendant moved to suppress CSLI, the government got another warrant for it. The first is thus denied. United States v. Eugene, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68581 (D. Conn. Apr. 10, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant was a suspect in a driveby shooting. Because defendant\u2019s social media showed firearms, it was a fair inference that evidence of the offense or the social media posts would be on his phone. Therefore, there was probable cause for … Continue reading