Plaintiff\u2019s civil rights complaint that OnStar allegedly illegally tracked his vehicle was already decided against him in his criminal case. The issue is precluded here. Lenhart v. Savetski, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109462 (N.D. Ohio June 11, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The collection of defendant\u2019s CSLI was in accord with law at the time, so it was admissible at trial. United States v. Canada, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 17432 (2d Cir. June 11, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A 7 am 911 call about an unresponsive man in a parked car with two flat tires justified police opening the car door. \u201cThe driver had one foot on the brake and one foot outside the car, and he was not immediately responsive to the officers’ attempts to rouse him. On those facts, an objectively reasonable officer would have thought that something was very amiss and that the driver was likely in need of emergency aid \u2014 particularly because while attempting to rouse the individual, the officers saw that the handle of a knife seemed to be jutting out from the driver’s stomach area. Under these circumstances, the exigent circumstances exception clearly applies, and the officers did not violate Harris’ Fourth Amendment rights by holding his arms still while they better investigated what was going on.\u201d United States v. Harris, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109728 (E.D. Va. June 10, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Plaintiff\u2019s civil rights complaint that OnStar allegedly illegally tracked his vehicle was already decided against him in his criminal case. The issue is precluded here. Lenhart v. Savetski, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109462 (N.D. Ohio June 11, 2021). The collection … Continue reading