Defendant\u2019s computer was subjected to a keyword search in a tax fraud case by two names and a phrase. That was clearly within the warrant. A second search effort, however, for \u201cdiscovery\u201d was outside the warrant and suppressed. It could not be legitimately characterized as a part of the initial warranted search. \u201cHowever, the search warrant did not authorize a search of defendant Wardle\u2019s hard drive for the purpose of obtaining documents related to a different individual in response to discovery obligations in a different case. Because the second search was clearly performed for a distinct purpose that was not authorized by the warrant, the court can not find that the search was proper.\u201d United States v. Wardle, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100091 (D. Utah July 16, 2013).<\/p>\n
Two controlled buys brought defendant in his white car to the scene. That was probable cause for arrest and a search of the car. Herron v. State<\/a>, 991 N.E.2d 165 (Ind. App. 2013).*<\/p>\n Seizure of money from defendant four months after his alleged use of an ATM card for about that same amount of money was without probable cause. State v. Noller<\/a>, 2013 Ohio 3183, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 3243 (6th Dist. July 19, 2013).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading