For the time being, the search warrant application is redacted in discovery under Rule 6(e). \u201cFirst, the Special Counsel opposes the disclosure of a search warrant application for Defendant De Oliveira’s Gmail account \u2026. This includes the search warrant itself, the accompanying affidavit, and any attachments thereto \u2026. Consistent with the holdings above, the Court directs Defendants to redact from these materials witness identities, P.I.I., and any Jencks material that could directly identify potential witnesses as previously described in this Order.\u201d United States v. Trump, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66640 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 9, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Cleveland Transit police did not have statutory authority to make traffic stops on any streets away from a transit authority property. State v. Thomas, 2024-Ohio-1361 (8th Dist. Apr. 11, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A traffic offense justifies a stop. Jimenez v. City of Cohoes Police Dep’t, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 8608 (2d Cir. Apr. 10, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
For the time being, the search warrant application is redacted in discovery under Rule 6(e). \u201cFirst, the Special Counsel opposes the disclosure of a search warrant application for Defendant De Oliveira’s Gmail account \u2026. This includes the search warrant itself, … Continue reading