D.C.Cir.: Ptf stated 1A retaliation claim over civil investigative demand

Media Matters stated a claim in D.C. for First Amendment retaliation by the Texas Attorney General’s civil investigative demand for records based on not liking their reporting. Injunction affirmed. Media Matters for America v. Paxton, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 13155 (D.C. Cir. May 30, 2025).

Based on the video, defendant consented to the search. United States v. Guerrero, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103051 (D. Kan. May 30, 2025).*

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging warrantless placing of a GPS on defendant’s vehicle where it had nothing to do with the case. Defendant’s DNA was taken as abandoned in a restaurant and then matched to the crime. That happened before the GPS device was placed. Burdick v. Bousch, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 13280 (6th Cir. May 30, 2025).*

Probation and police searched defendant’s place for a handgun which wasn’t found. He was arrested anyway. Later, his girlfriend, aware that the police were concerned about a gun inside, found a locked gun case and turned it over to the police. They got a warrant to open the case. The turning over the gun was a private search. State v. Langley, 319 Neb. 67 (May 30, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Ineffective assistance, Private search, Subpoenas / Nat'l Security Letters. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.