Officer\u2019s statement that defendant was in a surveillance video was a reasonable conclusion, and not a reckless overstatement for Franks. United States v. Warren, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70293 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 14, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant passed up a conditional plea and had a bench trial combined with suppression hearing. That also cost him acceptance of responsibility. United States v. Nunez, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 8789 (5th Cir. Apr. 14, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Officers reasonably believed that a hotel manager had authority to consent to search of a room that defendant was out of. United States v. Anderson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70108 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 14, 2025)* (\u201cTo be sure, Medina never expressly said she wanted Anderson \u2018trespassed\u2019 (to use the word Officer Granas employed to describe ejecting a hotel guest), or that she had ejected him. \u2026 But Fourth Amendment inquiries are grounded in reasonableness, not the intoning of \u2018magic words.\u2019 Fair v. Mills, 230 F. Supp. 3d 1305, 1311 (M.D. Fla. 2017) (quoting United States v. Gray, 369 F.3d 1024, 1026 (8th Cir. 2004)). The facts recited above gave Officer Granas a reasonable basis for believing that Medina had the authority to consent to the room’s search, regardless of the particular words Medina used.\u201d).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Officer\u2019s statement that defendant was in a surveillance video was a reasonable conclusion, and not a reckless overstatement for Franks. United States v. Warren, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70293 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 14, 2025).* Defendant passed up a conditional plea … Continue reading