Daily Archives: March 29, 2025

LATimes: ‘People should be worried’: 23andMe bankruptcy could expose customers’ genetic data

LATimes: ‘People should be worried’: 23andMe bankruptcy could expose customers’ genetic data by Caroline Petrow-Cohen and Stacy Perman (“Once a promising company briefly valued at $6 billion, 23andMe popularized at-home DNA test kits and spawned a cottage industry of ancestry … Continue reading

Posted in DNA | Comments Off on LATimes: ‘People should be worried’: 23andMe bankruptcy could expose customers’ genetic data

OH2: Officer could pursue across jurisdictional lines

The officer had territorial jurisdiction to stop and arrest defendant after he fled across jurisdictional lines. The officer was in hot pursuit. Also, a motion to dismiss isn’t the remedy. State v. Letts, 2025-Ohio-1085, 2025 Ohio App. LEXIS 1033 (2d … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on OH2: Officer could pursue across jurisdictional lines

Cal.1st: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to DL suspensions

The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to DL suspension proceedings. Kazelka v. Cal. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, 2025 Cal. App. LEXIS 196 (1st Dist. Mar. 27, 2025). Officers responded to a shots fired call in a Bronx apartment and entered and … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Probable cause, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on Cal.1st: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to DL suspensions

CA6: By testifying at trial searches were based on false evidence, def violated proffer agreement; govt should have objected, not violated it, too

Defendant’s trial testimony about his searches being based on falsities violated his proffer agreement, but, rather than objecting, the government’s putting in more evidence violated it, too. (But harmless error.) United States v. Grogan, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 7094 (6th … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence | Comments Off on CA6: By testifying at trial searches were based on false evidence, def violated proffer agreement; govt should have objected, not violated it, too

WA: Mandatory UAs valid on supervision despite not being related to crime of conviction

Even though mandatory UA for drug and alcohol don’t directly relate to defendant’s crimes of conviction, there still is a compelling interest in the state being able to test. State v. Nelson, 2025 Wash. LEXIS 150 (Mar. 27, 2025). The … Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Exclusionary rule, Probable cause | Comments Off on WA: Mandatory UAs valid on supervision despite not being related to crime of conviction

CA9: “[E]vidence of dominion and control provision” sought in this CP SW made it overbroad

The “evidence of dominion and control provision” sought in this child pornography search warrant made it overbroad. United States v. Holcomb, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 7135 (9th Cir. Mar. 27, 2025). The first paragraph: This case raises a variation of … Continue reading

Posted in Overbreadth, Particularity | Comments Off on CA9: “[E]vidence of dominion and control provision” sought in this CP SW made it overbroad