The raid in this case was recorded on bodycams but the official retention policy at the time was to hold video for only 60 days unless it was flagged to be kept despite the fact that cases take longer than that for a case to get filed. The defense wants sanctions for destroying the video of the search. Denied. The defense doesn\u2019t show how it would be helpful. They aren\u2019t claiming the firearm recovered was planted. United States v. Davidson, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233135 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 29, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Habeas petitioner\u2019s Fourth Amendment and other claims were unexhausted because they were still pending in the state appellate court. Jones v. Hughes, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 232898 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 30, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Officers could approach defendant\u2019s vehicle and open the door when he was sitting on a public road apparently unconscious. State v. McCarthy, 2022-Ohio-4738, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 4396 (Dec. 29, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The raid in this case was recorded on bodycams but the official retention policy at the time was to hold video for only 60 days unless it was flagged to be kept despite the fact that cases take longer than … Continue reading