Investigator\u2019s use of E-Phex (\u201cundercover investigative software\u201d) to enter defendant\u2019s computer when it was available for peer-to-peer file sharing was not an unreasonable search. United States v. Hill, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94505 (W.D. Mo. June 18, 2012), adopted 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94506 (W.D. Mo. July 9, 2012).*<\/p>\n
Defendant was stopped based on a CI\u2019s report, but the officers also ran defendant\u2019s name and found he had a revoked license, and that justified the stop. United States v. Irons, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93935 (N.D. W.Va. July 9, 2012).*<\/p>\n
CI\u2019s information was corroborated by the officers as to how they were dressed and where they were located, and the officer immediately recognized one of the men as a convicted felon. The officers made a \u201csoft approach\u201d without lights and did not order them to stop. They got out of their car and asked to talk to them. \u201cNone of the traditional factors used to assess the presence of police coercion were present, and there was no objective indication that Shaw and Teixeira were not free to disregard Detective Almeida’s request and leave the area. Such an encounter does not trigger Fourth Amendment scrutiny until and “unless it loses its consensual nature.” United States v. Shaw, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144672 (D. Mass. April 7, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading