D.Ariz.: Consent was voluntary; "threat" to get a SW here was meaningless since there clearly was PC

Consent of somebody with authority was voluntary: She had actually an interest in consent, she had 90 minutes to think about it, was advised of the right to refuse, mention of getting a search warrant was not threatening and the police had clearly had probable cause. United States v. Moore, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11734 (D. Ariz. January 28, 2013).* Two arguments that was better off being waived: no probable cause that defendant was robbed a bank and that a bank bag found from the robbed bank couldn’t be searched. A more plausible staleness argument on a search warrant for evidence of the bank robbery being found seven months later was abandoned by saving it for the reply brief. United States v. Abramski, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 1881 (4th Cir. January 23, 2013).* “An application for a wiretap authorization must be supported by the same probable cause necessary for a search warrant. See United States v. Hyde, 574 F.2d 856, 862 (5th Cir. 1978). The issuing magistrate is to make a ‘practical, common-sense decision’ about whether the ‘totality of the circumstances’ indicate that there is probable cause that the sought-for evidence will be obtained. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 233, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983).” United States v. Davis, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11803 (M.D. Ala. January 10, 2013).*