CA6: Business’s sole other employee had apparent authority to consent

Plaintiff’s adult child was the sole other employee of the business, and he had apparent authority to consent to a search. For all practical purpose, he’s in charge, too. Rockwood Auto Parts, Inc. v. Monroe Cty., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 23406 (6th Cir. Sep. 10, 2025).

When CP comes to or from an IP address, the government doesn’t need knowledge of who lives there and uses it to show probable cause. United States v. Rodrigues, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176637 (D. Mass. Sep. 10, 2025).*

[Aside from the Stone bar,] petitioner’s claim Rule 41 was violated by the search warrant doesn’t provide grounds for 2255 relief. McGhee v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176366 (C.D. Ill. Sep. 10, 2025).*

The trial court’s failure to consider one of defendant’s search claims gets a remand. People v. Letts, 2025 Mich. App. LEXIS 7218 (Sep. 9, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Apparent authority, Exclusionary rule, F.R.Crim.P. 41, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.