Epstein Secrets

tomobile, even though the police conducted their search three days after the police stopped the vehicle and at the police station. United States v. Johns, 469 U.S. 478, 485-88, 105 S.Ct. 881, 83 L.Ed.2d 890 (1985). The Court rejected the argument that "searches of containers discovered in the course

nment's search here was "particularly offensive" due to the location and duration of the search runs counter to the Supreme Court's admonitions in Johns and Montoya de Hernandez. It also effectively requires the government to supply every port of entry with the equipment and staff needed to conduct

share or sell with other organizations. Max Stul Oppenheimer, Consent Revisited, 13 No. 12 J. Internet L. 3,

patently illogical — and all the more so in light of Epstein's admission in his lawsuit against M. and others that he that he was "one of M's many `Johns.— See Complaint Epstein v. Rothstein, Edwards & M s, No. 50 2009 CA0 40800 (Cir. Ct., 15th Jud. Cir., Palm Beach Co.. Dec. 7, 2009) at 146(a), pert

003 WL 23018833 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2003) 10, 11 Oppenheimer Fund. Inc. v. Sanders 437 U.S. 340 (1978) 10 P

patently illogical — and all the more so in light of Epstein's admission in his lawsuit against M. and others that he that he was "one of M's many 'Johns.'" See Complaint Epstein v. Rothstein, Edwards & M s, No. 50 2009 CA0 40800 (Cir. Ct., 15th Jut Cir., Palm Beach Co., Dec. 7, 2009) at 146(a), pert

003 WL 23018833 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2003) 10, 11 Oppenheimer Fund. Inc. v. Sanders 437 U.S. 340 (1978) 10 P