
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


Send us a text
This week we discuss United States v. Brinkman-Coronel, where the CAAF acknowledges that cellular phones are unique under the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment analysis, but then presses on to treat third party consent to the search of a cell phone in the same manner as third party consent to search a brief case. Disappointing. We then hear from Captain Elliot Ko with a very thoughtful discussion of MRE 513 in regard to Family Advocacy records -- including seven specific suggestions for defenders.
By Sam Castanien & Trevor Ward5
1919 ratings
Send us a text
This week we discuss United States v. Brinkman-Coronel, where the CAAF acknowledges that cellular phones are unique under the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment analysis, but then presses on to treat third party consent to the search of a cell phone in the same manner as third party consent to search a brief case. Disappointing. We then hear from Captain Elliot Ko with a very thoughtful discussion of MRE 513 in regard to Family Advocacy records -- including seven specific suggestions for defenders.

91,032 Listeners

43,919 Listeners

229,264 Listeners

38,779 Listeners

26,222 Listeners

154,120 Listeners

1,085 Listeners

1,948 Listeners

112,934 Listeners

56,548 Listeners

16,096 Listeners

26,639 Listeners

45 Listeners

21 Listeners

621 Listeners