CAAF: SW’s incorporated affidavit satisfied particularity, reliance on CA10 case not CAAF case was error

The military judge’s restrictive determination of particularity to exclude evidence while relying on a Tenth Circuit case instead of precedent from this court was an abuse of discretion. The incorporated affidavit was sufficient to show probable cause and particularity under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Ixcolgonzalez, 2026 CAAF LEXIS 711 (C.A.A.F. Aug. 24, 2026).

Defendant pro se didn’t complain that his standby counsel wasn’t present for his suppression hearing. Not preserved, and on plain error review, no error. United States v. Howard, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 25880 (11th Cir. Aug. 26, 2026).*

“[I]mmigration detention is civil in nature under these circumstances, and thus, the cases decided under Fourth Amendment jurisprudence are inapplicable. Zadvydas v. Davis, … (2001).” Doe v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190383 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 24, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Immigration arrests, Military searches, Particularity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.