KS: In responding to SW, out-of-state social media company’s authentication statement substantially complied with state law

In responding to a search warrant request, the social media company provided Rule 901 authentication for that state “under penalty of perjury,” but under the law of the United States not the State of Kansas. It was under penalty of perjury and that’s substantial compliance with state law. State v. Kemp, 2025 Kan. App. LEXIS 10 (Feb. 28, 2025).

Probable cause a traffic violation occurred is justification for this stop even if it was pretextual for drugs. United States v. Burgman, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36064 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 28, 2025).*

The district court credited the officers that there was a traffic violation supporting the stop, and the videos did not contradict it. United States v. Hunter, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 4743 (6th Cir. Feb. 26, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Burden of proof, Pretext, Warrant execution, Warrant papers. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.