\u201cIn this case, the evidence was that, although the Defendant lived in the van, the van was registered to someone else, and the vehicle registration indicated the same. The doors to the van were wide open and it was parked in a public lot. Thus, the trial court ruled that the Defendant did not have an expectation of privacy in the vehicle and, therefore, lacked standing to challenge the search of the van and the seizure of the items found inside.\u201d State v. Rodgers, 2026 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 315 (May 26, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The warrant affidavit mentioned gun parts and a 3D printer shipped to defendant\u2019s place. \u201cDefendant next asserts that the search warrant application failed to establish a nexus between any criminal activity and the Target Location. Specifically, defendant suggests that it is \u2018a leap of conjecture\u2019 to assume that gun parts and the 3D printer, all of which were shipped to the Target Location, would be found therein. The Court is underwhelmed.\u201d United States v. Butland, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118932 (D. Mass. May 29, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s Franks affidavit seeking to justify a hearing that he denies what the officer said in the affidavit for warrant is not a \u201csubstantial preliminary showing\u201d under First Circuit precedent. This is essentially an effort at cross-examination. United States v. Rivera-Fern\u00e1ndez, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118989 (D.P.R. May 27, 2026).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cIn this case, the evidence was that, although the Defendant lived in the van, the van was registered to someone else, and the vehicle registration indicated the same. The doors to the van were wide open and it was parked … Continue reading