Defendant argued that the execution of this search warrant resulted in disclosure of attorney-client privileged information because of alleged misuse of a taint team. But, he provides no context or anything to go on. Taint teams are recognized in such situation. United States v. Taylor, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188060 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 13, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
After a traffic stop at a gas station, the officer diverted to investigate suspicious activity at the gas station and not the traffic stop. This violated the Fourth Amendment. State v. Fish<\/a>, 2022 Ga. App. LEXIS 479 (Oct. 13, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s \u00a7 1983 case against his state search fails both under Heck v. Humphrey and on the merits. He was on home detention in lieu of jail, and any searches could be without warrants but upon probable cause which \u201c[t]hey unquestionably\u201d had. He also consented. Johnson v. Piper, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188112 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 13, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n The officers had a \u201cfair probability\u201d that drugs would be in defendant\u2019s car supporting a search under the automobile exception. United States v. Haworth, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 28586 (6th Cir. Oct. 13, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant argued that the execution of this search warrant resulted in disclosure of attorney-client privileged information because of alleged misuse of a taint team. But, he provides no context or anything to go on. Taint teams are recognized in such … Continue reading