Defendant who actively disclaimed possession or ownership of a cell phone could not complain about its tracking. United States v. Barron, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108410 (D. Kan. August 1, 2013).<\/p>\n
Defendant was not the subscriber of the cell phone he was using, so he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the historical cell site data and call records. State v. Griffin<\/a>, 834 N.W.2d 688 (Minn. 2013).<\/p>\n Plaintiff\u2019s failure to object to the Magistrate\u2019s R&R was waiver of his right to appeal SJ in his 1983 case. Battle v. Baalaer<\/a>, 536 Fed. Appx. 725 (9th Cir. 2013).*<\/p>\n The search of this vehicle was justified by consent or the automobile exception, based on the fact a bag of cocaine was in plain view on the floor. United States v. Sanchez, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108394 (W.D. Tex. August 2, 2013).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading