There was probable cause for the first and second search warrants for child pornography on defendant\u2019s devices (took ~100 pages to say that). No exclusionary rule; good faith exception applies, too. United States v. Pena, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218914 (D.N.M. Nov. 12, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff sued only the prosecutor\u2019s office for an illegal search. It\u2019s not a proper party in a \u00a7 1983 case. Smith v. Cape May Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219000 (D.N.J. Nov. 10, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Habeas petitioner can\u2019t relitigate his Fourth Amendment stop and search claim in federal court. Williams v. Greene, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219069 (D.Md. Nov. 10, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In federal bribe case under \u00a7 666, defendant\u2019s CSLI was legally obtained and usable to prove he wasn\u2019t where he said he was. United States v. Pizzonia, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219094 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s amended 2255 Fourth Amendment claim doesn\u2019t relate back so it\u2019s barred (completely aside from the Stone bar). Dorsey v. United States, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219301 (W.D.Wash. Nov. 12, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
There was probable cause for the first and second search warrants for child pornography on defendant\u2019s devices (took ~100 pages to say that). No exclusionary rule; good faith exception applies, too. United States v. Pena, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218914 … Continue reading