D.Conn.: LEO accessing public social media accounts doesn’t implicate 4A

A prison security official’s accessing a potential visitor’s social media accounts to determine whether the visitor is some kind of security threat doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment. Lawrence v. Zack, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161377 (D. Conn. Sep. 9, 2024).

Petitioner had his full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim in state court and he did. He can’t retry it now in a 2254. Knox v. Dixon, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161769 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 20, 2024).*

In light of Bruen, it wasn’t unlawful for defendant to have a firearm on his person, so his detention and arrest for that was unreasonable. United States v. Shepherd, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161714 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 6, 2024).*

“‘The exclusionary rule applies in federal court to violations of the Indian Civil Rights Act’s Fourth Amendment counterpart.’” United States v. Jefferson, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161843 (W.D. Wash. Sep. 9, 2024) (recognizing rule).*

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Exclusionary rule, Issue preclusion, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Social media warrants. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.