OH4: Inventory found pretextual

The inventory here was found pretextual by the way the officer conducted it; e.g., not using gloves until something was found [which says nothing to me]. State v. Clark, 2026-Ohio-447, 2026 Ohio App. LEXIS 510 (4th Dist. Feb. 5, 2026).

Plaintiff was the subject of an administrative warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate. The complaint is dismissed. Waldrop v. Colo. Dep’t of Agric., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27532 (D. Colo. Feb. 10, 2026).*

The fact the officer involved in this search later had his own criminal problems isn’t shown to relate to this case at all. Lucas v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27569 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2026).*

Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his IP provider’s information. State v. Hill, 347 Or. App. 18 (Feb. 11, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Administrative search, Franks doctrine, Inventory, Pretext, Third Party Doctrine. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.