It was not error to deny a continuance in a suppression hearing after it started because one officer was unavailable due to a death in the family. The defense didn’t even know what he would testify to when asked, but he was in on the stop. At the trial there were minor differences in the testimony, but they agreed on the essentials that led to the justification for the stop. Therefore, his testimony was cumulative at best. People v. Maxey, 2018 IL App (1st) 130698-B, 2018 Ill. App. LEXIS 729 (Sep. 13, 2018, corrected Sep. 28, 2018).
Plaintiff’s pro se complaint against Apple for responding to a state court order to unlock defendant’s phone is dismissed for failing to state a claim. Apple didn’t seize it. In the underlying proceedings, he challenged the search, and it was denied without prejudice and then he pled guilty. McFadden v. Apple Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155805 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 13, 2018).*