Without acknowledging the cell phone police searched was his, defendant did not show standing to contest the search. Even so, the use of forensic software to bypass the password protection on the phone didn\u2019t make the search unreasonable. United States v. Alexander, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16554 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 1, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The officer here was responding to an unrelated domestic disturbance call when he encountered plaintiff slapping another woman on the street. He rushed her and surprised tackled her. His 265 pds broker her pelvis landing on her. He gets qualified immunity. \u201cWe need not decide whether Officer Gaton violated the Fourth Amendment. On the facts of this case, Officer Gaton is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law. Qualified immunity is \u2018a defense that shields officials from suit if their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.\u2019 Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180, 183 (2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).\u201d Kelly v. Gaton, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 2330 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 27, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There was objective probable cause for the wiretap warrant. That means there was objective reliance on it for good faith exception. United States v. Belton, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15930 (N.D. Iowa Jan. 31, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Without acknowledging the cell phone police searched was his, defendant did not show standing to contest the search. Even so, the use of forensic software to bypass the password protection on the phone didn\u2019t make the search unreasonable. United States … Continue reading