The defendant was alleged to have engaged in three drug sales with a CI right outside his apartment door. This led to a fair inference that drugs would be found in defendant\u2019s apartment. United States v. Dedrick, 840 F. Supp. 2d 482 (D. Minn. 2012).<\/p>\n
Merely being the \u201cemergency contact\u201d on a storage unit lease did not give the defendant standing to challenge its search. Defendant was neither lessor nor owner of the unit. United States v. McMahan, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151724 (E.D. Tenn. December 7, 2011).*<\/p>\n
One defendant gave a false name and SSN when asked, and it is clear from the video that there was consent to search the vehicle for their identities. One defendant\u2019s reaching for her shoes and purse did not constitute a limitation on consent for the vehicle. United States v. Jackson, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5849 (W.D. Va. January 18, 2012).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading