The defendant was the pilot of a small passenger plane flying to Hyannis from Martha’s Vineyard, and he apparently had a diabetic episode and became disoriented. A student pilot on the plane took the controls in the passenger seat and crash landed the plane. The search of the baggage of the pilot that produced a syringe and insulin by an FAA inspector was a valid administrative search. United States v. Crews, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60493 (D. Mass. August 25, 2006).<\/p>\n
Just because the defendant was the target of a search does not give him standing when he otherwise lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched. United States v. Morrison, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60477 (E.D. N.Y. August 25, 2006):<\/p>\n
Given, as reported by Mr. Cleere, [the officer,] that defendant purportedly lacked the ability to access his former secretary’s office, no less her safe in which the firearms — said to be hers — were found, it is clear that he lacks standing to seek the suppression of those items. That the search may have been directed at Mr. Morrison, i.e. he was the “target” of the search, does not alter the above result ([Rakas<\/em>] at 138), nor does the fact that he is the one facing criminal charges based on the fruits of the search (id.<\/em> at 134).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
A specifically described person attempted to rob a convenience stop, and Memphis police saw the vehicle associated with the alleged robber later. When the vehicle was stopped, it was with reasonable suspicion, and, when the door was opened, a gun was seen in plain view. United States v. Price, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60742 (W.D. Tenn. August 25, 2006).*<\/p>\n
One informant had information of his own and from another that a meth cook was going to occur in a business. Officers set up surveillance and waited for the participants to arrive. When they did, the officers secured the premises and sought a search warrant, and this was valid under Segura<\/em>. United States v. Maxfield, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60634 (D. Utah August 24, 2006).<\/p>\n
Consent to a search was valid, despite the fact that officers said that if he did not sign the consent form they would secure the premises because they believed they had PC for a warrant. This does not make the consent involuntary. United States v. Gonzalez, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60679 (N.D. Fla. August 15, 2006).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading