\u201cIn this case, Officer Michael acted with reckless disregard for Crosby’s Fourth Amendment rights when he forcibly removed him from the vehicle without probable cause to believe that he was involved in criminal activity. The court finds that the deterrent value of the exclusionary rule in this case outweighs the resulting social costs. The court further finds that the firearm and ammunition were products of the illegal seizure. For these reasons, the firearm and ammunition must be suppressed.\u201d United States v. Crosby, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173154 (E.D. N.C. December 10, 2013).*<\/p>\n
Officers had both exigent circumstances and consent to take possession of defendant\u2019s cell phone. It was searched with a search warrant. United States v. Thomas, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173117 (D. Ariz. December 9, 2013).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s 2255 on defense counsel\u2019s alleged failures to pursue a suppression motion timely is \u201cis pure fantasy.\u201d Rodriguez v. United States, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173165 (S.D. N.Y. December 6, 2013).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading