Consent of somebody with authority was voluntary: She had actually an interest in consent, she had 90 minutes to think about it, was advised of the right to refuse, mention of getting a search warrant was not threatening and the police clearly had probable cause. United States v. Moore, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11734 (D. Ariz. January 28, 2013).*<\/p>\n
Two arguments that were better off being waived: no probable cause that defendant robbed a bank and that a bank bag found from the robbed bank couldn\u2019t be searched. A more plausible staleness argument on a search warrant for evidence of the bank robbery being found seven months later was abandoned by saving it for the reply brief. United States v. Abramski<\/a>, 706 F.3d 307 (4th Cir. 2013).*<\/p>\n \u201cAn application for a wiretap authorization must be supported by the same probable cause necessary for a search warrant. See United States v. Hyde, 574 F.2d 856, 862 (5th Cir. 1978). The issuing magistrate is to make a \u2018practical, common-sense decision\u2019 about whether the \u2018totality of the circumstances\u2019 indicate that there is probable cause that the sought-for evidence will be obtained. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 233, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983).\u201d United States v. Davis, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11803 (M.D. Ala. January 10, 2013).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading