NC: Admin. tax warrant search of house violated 4A

Search under a general administrative tax warrant under state law violates the Fourth Amendment. This involved a search of a house where the taxes were not paid on illegal drugs. Also, it was issued by the Secretary of Revenue and not a judicial officer. State v. Hickman, 2025 N.C. App. LEXIS 784 (Nov. 5, 2025).

The district court erred in dismissing this case as moot. It sought recovery of seized money and the affidavits for warrant. Payment of the money didn’t make it moot. Cal. Palms Addiction Recovery Campus, Inc. v. United States, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 29180 (6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2025).*

There was consent to search defendant’s cell phone, and the search incident of his truck was reasonable. United States v. Smtih, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218961 (D. Kan. Nov. 6, 2025).*

“Somehow dismissing the reports of interview, the text messages, and their own surveillance, Defendant claims the FBI had no knowledge that a drug transaction was about to occur. Such facts are not required because probable cause is ‘a fluid concept—turning on the assessment of probabilities in particular factual contexts—not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules.’ Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237, 243 (2013).” The CI’s information was creditable. United States v. Oca, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218877 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 6, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Administrative search, Consent, Informant hearsay, Neutral and detached magistrate, Probable cause, Warrant papers. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.