CA9: Ptfs didn’t meet burden of showing administrative subpoena was 4A violation or in bad faith

Bad faith administrative subpoenas are grounded in the Fourth Amendment, but the burden is high in showing bad faith, and plaintiffs didn’t meet it. Queerdoc, PLLC v. DOJ, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 24567 (9th Cir. Aug. 14, 2026) (“The prohibition against bad-faith subpoenas is also grounded in the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that a subpoena be reasonable. Golden Valley, 689 F.3d at 1113. Whether the authority rests on our inherent equitable power or on the Fourth Amendment, the inquiry remains the same.”).

Defendant had no standing to contest the search of his victim’s cell phone. State v. Carroll, 2026 S.C. App. LEXIS 54 (Aug. 12, 2026).*

Defendant’s parole search “stalking horse” argument utterly failed on the proof. United States v. Malyk, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 24446 (9th Cir. Aug. 13, 2026).*

The trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law on there being reasonable suspicion for the length of stop before the drug dog are clearly erroneous. Reversed. State v. Belony, 2026 ME 86 (Aug. 13, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Administrative search, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion, Standing, Subpoenas / Nat'l Security Letters. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.