Defendant challenged defense counsel\u2019s performance at this suppression hearing for not adequately challenging the search. Based on what defense counsel did not present and the government\u2019s argument in its appeal brief, the court determines that defendant had standing to challenge the search after all, but he would fail on his Franks challenge. [\u201cFurther support for the assertion that Defendant would be entitled to claim some degree of standing is found in the Government\u2019s appellate brief, in which it argues that the search was conducted at a location where Defendant \u2018routinely resided\u2019 (doc. 213, att. 1 at 6 (page 7 of the brief, page 6 of the exhibit)).\u201d] United States v. Smith, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119199 (N.D. Fla. September 23, 2011).*<\/p>\n
The search of defendant\u2019s safe is found to be by voluntary consent. United States v. Matayoshi, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119048 (M.D. Fla. September 22, 2011).*<\/p>\n
Defense counsel was not ineffective for not challenging the search warrant for defendant\u2019s computer because defendant had no expectation of privacy from leaving his computer connected to the internet for P2P searches of his hard drive. United States v. Samples, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119040 (N.D. Tex. September 15, 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading