Officers did not coerce defendant into consenting to an entry to arrest him. They knocked in the early morning hours with flashlights, and he answered the door. United States v. Hill, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42410 (D. Minn. March 31, 2011).*<\/p>\n
The district judge reviewed the transcript of the hearing before the USMJ, and there is no reason not to follow the finding that the defendant\u2019s testimony at the suppression hearing should be discredited, so no further hearing is required. United States v. Frost, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42522 (W.D. Tenn. April 18, 2011), R&R 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42476 (W.D. Tenn. March 14, 2011).*<\/p>\n
Plaintiff\u2019s claim that local utilities bombarded her house with EMFs was not a Fourth Amendment claim. Barnett v. Carberry, 420 Fed. Appx. 67 (2d Cir. 2011).*<\/p>\n
Applying the rule that courts should decide cases on the narrowest grounds possible, the stop here was justified by the load on defendant\u2019s trailer being too wide, so the validity of the administrative inspection does not have to be decided. Morris v. City of Virginia Beach<\/a>, 58 Va. App. 173, 707 S.E.2d 479 (2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading