Defendant\u2019s argument that the records obtained by search warrant from other are unreliable is not a Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule question. United States v. Skinner, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84377 (W.D. N.Y. May 3, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A burnt blunt on the floor was probable cause to search, and defendant\u2019s abandonment of the vehicle in the driveway of a third person was a forfeiture of his privacy interest in the vehicle. State v. Kendall<\/a>, 2021-Ohio-1551, 2021 Ohio App. LEXIS 1512 (6th Dist. Apr. 30, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cCould officers have investigated Big Jim Bonding more before seeking a search warrant? Maybe. Could the warrant application have included more information or allegations. Likely. Could the warrant that was issued be more focused or better written. Certainly. Would the search warrant fail on a motion to suppress? Perhaps. But none of these are the relevant question. Rather, the proper question is whether Plaintiff has pointed to clearly established law that would lead a reasonable officer to conclude that seeking and serving the search warrant on Big Jim’s Bonding on August 29, 2018 violated the constitution. Because Plaintiff has not made that showing, summary judgment is appropriate on his Fourth Amendment claim as to all Defendants.\u201d Howe v. Howell, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84244 (M.D. Tenn. May 3, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant\u2019s argument that the records obtained by search warrant from other are unreliable is not a Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule question. United States v. Skinner, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84377 (W.D. N.Y. May 3, 2021). A burnt blunt on the … Continue reading