C.D.Cal.: Warehouse used as a residence required admin. warrant for fire inspection

A fire inspection of a warehouse that was being used as a residence was subject to the administrative warrant requirement. No exception applies. Hannan v. L.A. Cty. Fire Dep’t, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 235999 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2024).

2254 petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim over his text messages was defaulted. He presented a different ground to the state court. Rumph v. Dixon, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 235950 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 26, 2024),* adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1514 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 6, 2025).*

Petitioner’s 2255 seeks to relitigate his Fourth Amendment claim that was already lost in his 2255 and it’s treated as a successor petition and denied. Glover v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3072 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 7, 2025).*

There was at least some corroboration of the anonymous information, and that at least shows a substantial basis for crediting the probable cause for the police to rely on it. “[I]t [is] difficult to conclude that the warrant was so lacking in indicia of probable cause to render it facially deficient or reliance on it objectively unreasonable. Thus, the motion to suppress the evidence gathered as a result of the March 18, 2022 warrant is DENIED.” United States v. Bannick, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3047 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Administrative search, Informant hearsay, Issue preclusion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.