CA3: Def’s complaint about how CP forensic search was done didn’t rise to “objective unreasonableness”

In a computer search for child pornography, the use of the “hashing” function rather than “gallery view function” is not constitutionally required. That was an issue in United States v. Burgess, 576 F.3d 1078 (10th Cir. 2009), which the court does not find inconsistent. The question is always “objective reasonableness.” United States v. Townsend, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8936 (3d Cir. May 16, 2016).

The stop produced reasonable suspicion and then the drug dog alert was probable cause. Remanded, however, for determination of whether this is a proper conditional plea. State v. Manning, 2016 La. App. LEXIS 974 (La.App. 2 Cir. May 18, 2016).*

Plaintiff’s § 1983 search claim was time barred. His added claim for recovery of property on appeal wasn’t in the original case. Reynolds v. Wright, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9194 (10th Cir. May 17, 2016).*

This entry was posted in Reasonableness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.