Search warrant seeking “electronic\/digital devices\/media” permitted officers to seize cell phones. United States v. Reed, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142337 (D. Vt. October 2, 2013).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s furtive movements justified his search, so defense counsel was not ineffective for not challenging it. State v. Farrey<\/a>, 2013 Ohio 4263, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 4483 (9th Dist. September 30, 2013).*<\/p>\n Defendant took his computer to CompUSA for repair in 2005, and the computer tech found child pornography on the computer and called the police. That was a valid private search. For some reason, the investigation started again in 2009, and the police when to defendant\u2019s house and his wife with apparent or actual authority consented to a search of his computer and found more child pornography. The searches were valid. United States v. Tosti<\/a>, 733 F.3d 816 (9th Cir. 2013).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading