As officers approached defendant\u2019s property with a search warrant, he saw them and fled out of the back of the house into the yard and through a jacket over the fence. The jacket was properly seized and could have qualified as abandoned property. Defendant did not have an expectation of privacy where he threw it. The government bears the burden of showing that the scope of search under a search warrant is reasonable. United States v. Caymen, 404 F.3d 1196, 1199 (9th Cir. 2005). The government satisfies its burden here. There was also probable cause for the warrant. United States v. Washington, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119203 (E.D. Cal. August 22, 2012).*<\/p>\n
CI called the officer from a cell phone thereby giving the number, so the CI was not truly anonymous. The CI\u2019s information related to defendant\u2019s drug possession in his home, and the defendant was on parole, and the information was reasonable suspicion for a parole search. \u201cAlthough the general rule in Samson is easily discernible, its application is somewhat more difficult.\u201d Broad searches only possible if state law permits it. This was permitted under Knights. United States v. Dillard, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119124 (D. Kan. August 23, 2012).*<\/p>\n
The 2255 hearing established that defendant knew pleading guilty was a waiver of appeal of the suppression issue, and he can\u2019t show that he was harmed by it. Martin v. United States, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119416 (S.D. W.Va. August 23, 2012).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading