The Mine Safety and Health Administration sought an inspection of the respondent goldmine based on safety complaints it had received. The Fourth Amendment does not require an administrative warrant for an inspection. \u201cRegulatory inspections pursuant to the Mine Act are legal.\u201d Su v. Alaska Goldmine LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196475 (D. Alaska Nov. 1, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Petitioner\u2019s 2254 fails because the state court ruled against him on the merits of the search in the state post-conviction proceeding. \u201cBecause Petitioner’s underlying Fourth Amendment claim lacks merit, his ineffective assistance claim premised upon counsel’s failure to move to suppress the CSLI evidence and subsequent arrest necessarily fails.\u201d Moore v. Howard, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194822 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 31, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The state argued there was reasonable suspicion for defendant\u2019s stop regardless of the constitutionality of the DWI roadblock the police set up. On appeal, it\u2019s apparent that they didn\u2019t until the stop occurred. Suppression affirmed. State v. Varela-Coronado, 2023 N.M. App. LEXIS 87 (Oct. 30, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Mine Safety and Health Administration sought an inspection of the respondent goldmine based on safety complaints it had received. The Fourth Amendment does not require an administrative warrant for an inspection. \u201cRegulatory inspections pursuant to the Mine Act are … Continue reading