\u201cCody failed to state a Fourth Amendment claim for relief. He claimed that the defendants violated his Fourth Amendment rights by removing property from his cell during routine searches. But Cody was in prison, and \u2018the Fourth Amendment proscription against unreasonable searches [and seizures] does not apply within the confines of the prison cell.\u2019 Hudson, 468 U.S. at 526.\u201d Cody v. Slusher, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 5940 (6th Cir. Mar. 9, 2018).*<\/p>\n
The Alaska State Trooper\u2019s affidavit for search was not materially false, so the Franks allegation fails. The tipster was corroborated, too, by finding that defendant did, in fact, travel to Mexico several times. The officer also said in the affidavit that he believed the x-ray image of the package showed heroin because he\u2019d seen it several times before. United States v. Blodgett, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38448 (D. Alaska Mar. 8, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cCody failed to state a Fourth Amendment claim for relief. He claimed that the defendants violated his Fourth Amendment rights by removing property from his cell during routine searches. But Cody was in prison, and \u2018the Fourth Amendment proscription against … Continue reading