N.D.Ohio: Photo of premises in SW showed detached garage, and it was included because on curtilage

The warrant was particular when it showed a picture of the premises with the address. The photograph showed the detached garage on the curtilage. That was covered by the warrant, too. When the government raised standing in response to defendant’s motion to suppress, he at least addressed it in his reply brief asserting that he’d been there for the previous year as a guest. That was enough. United States v. Harrison, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122822 (N.D. Ohio July 17, 2023).

Defendant sought to enforce a non-prosecution agreement after a small quantity of drugs was found in a search. It was not by a motion to suppress. Defendant stated enough to get a hearing. Not a Fourth Amendment case. United States v. Bailey, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 18073 (4th Cir. July 17, 2023).*

Plaintiff executor stated a claim for excessive force. Remanded. M.A.R. v. City of Los Angeles, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 18078 (9th Cir. July 17, 2023).*

“But an officer’s request for a warrant is inherently an assertion that probable cause exists. Mr. Clark has not identified any basis—and the Court is not aware of one—for finding that an officer violates the Fourth Amendment by including the phrase ‘probable cause’ in his affidavit. His attorneys were not deficient because they did not cite this as grounds for invalidating the warrant.” Clark v. United States, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122228 (S.D. Ind. July 17, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Curtilage, Excessive force, Ineffective assistance, Particularity, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.