DE: Judge issuing track and trace order didn’t have to recuse from trial

The fact “the judge who presided over trial had signed a pen register or ‘track and trace’ warrant before [defendant’s] arrest” didn’t require recusal. The state court had already held issuing a search warrant didn’t require recusal either. Fayton v. State, 2026 Del. LEXIS 9 (Jan. 9, 2026).

There was reasonable suspicion for defendant’s stop as a trespasser on hotel property. United States v. Harris, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 566 (4th Cir. Jan. 9, 2026).*

The fact two juvenile sex trafficking victims had different recollections of things doesn’t show a Franks violation. Also, “The mere fact that one of the victims had juvenile offenses would not have undercut the weight of probable cause from evidence like the Facebook messages, the prostitution ad, the online pictures of the victims, and the victims’ personal testimony. In short, the warrants’ ‘issuance did not hinge on [the] detail’ of these missing juvenile offenses.” Defendant also doesn’t show that the affiant even knew about them. United States v. Richards, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 583 (6th Cir. Jan. 9, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Neutral and detached magistrate, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.