The Third Circuit held in two cases that parole searches conducted on defendants’ houses while they were in jail were valid under the Pennsylvania parole search statute and the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Strickland, 237 Fed. Appx. 773 (3d Cir. 2007) (unpublished); United States v. Eggleston, 243 Fed. Appx. 715 (3d Cir. 2007) (unpublished).<\/p>\n
Search incident seizure of a cellphone was justified by probable cause. Obtaining the number of the cellphone was not argued below, but the court finds that it was valid under inevitable discovery. United States v. Diaz, 494 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2007).*<\/p>\n
Search warrant described 1731 but the entry had to be through 1735 and the warrant described 1735. Once inside, the officers discovered the difference, and they sought an amended warrant. The misdescription did not violate the particularity clause of the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Wade, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51763 (E.D. Wis. July 11, 2007):<\/p>\n
Even if the court were to conclude that the search warrant did not meet the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment, the officers did not conduct a warrantless search of the defendant’s residence as the defendant contends. The evidence at the hearing established that Officer Bandt sought an amended search warrant once the officers were inside the building. Officer Bandt testified that the officers had made so much noise when initially attempting to enter the building that he was concerned that evidence would be removed before the officers could obtain a warrant with the correct address. He was also concerned for the safety of the officers. Therefore, the officers secured the residence. The officers ultimately obtained an amended warrant listing the address of the place to be searched as 1731-1735 W. Atkinson Avenue, Unit 1.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Denying plaintiff’s brother federal prison visitation because he failed a drug test was within the prison’s authority. “Because plaintiff challenges the search of other individuals, where he could not conceivably have an expectation of privacy, this claim must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.” Vaughn v. Adams, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51725 (E.D. Va. March 5, 2007).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading