After a lengthy suppression hearing in a child pornography case, the court concludes one of the government\u2019s experts on protocols for finding hash values on a computer shouldn\u2019t be credited, but, at bottom, it didn\u2019t change the outcome. This was a computer left on in file sharing mode on a P2P network, and that was an invitation to enter. \u201cBecause there is no evidence that law enforcement’s use of automated software reached information on Defendants’ computers that was not made available for sharing by the public, Defendants’ motions to suppress on the basis of a warrantless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment must be DENIED.\u201d United States v. Thomas, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159914 (D. Vt. November 8, 2013).*<\/p>\n
In a dissent from denial of rehearing en banc, one judge finds the panel essentially blew off an immigration case\u2019s Fourth Amendment claim with no discussion whatsoever, and more is required. Gupta v. McGahey<\/a>, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22596 (11th Cir. November 7, 2013).*<\/p>\n Defendant\u2019s guilty plea waived his alleged Fourth Amendment claim. United States v. Hernandez, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160142 (D. Nev. November 7, 2013).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading