Firescu v. Diamond

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that roommate’s consent to search and seizure of hard drive defendant placed in shared computer was effective against defendant because defendant “assumed the risk that” roommate would consent to its seizure (citing Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 128 (2006
• determining that a defendant who placed his hard drive in a shared computer that lacked password protection assumed the risk that another user would consent to a search
• finding probable cause based on officers’ tracing defendant’s phone number to the address
• “Officers may enter a third party’s residence to arrest the subject of an arrest warrant if they have probable cause to believe she is inside”
• first citing United States v. Cooper, 437 F.3d 324, 329-30 (3d Cir. 2006); then citing Tomko, 562 F.3d at 567
• jurisdiction lacking to review denial of downward departure under § 5K1.1 unless sentencing court “was unaware of its discretion to grant the motion. ” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).