An attorney-client letter was obtained by search warrant and it was isolated by the taint team. Because no case was pending at the time, the Sixth Amendment was not violated, and the dismissal or disqualification is an necessary remedy. United States v. Wade, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106344 (D. Utah June 14, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendants reasonably relied on a co-owner\u2019s consent to euthanize a dog. Alternatively, they have qualified immunity because the alleged Fourth Amendment right was not clearly established. Bulfin v. Rainwater, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 14595 (8th Cir. June 17, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In an overlong jail detention case where plaintiff\u2019s case had been dismissed, the parties didn\u2019t adequately brief the Fourth Amendment question, and the plaintiff\u2019s first amended complaint doesn\u2019t adequately plead a knowing or reckless violation by defendants. The federal claims are dismissed and the state law claims are remanded back for a determination of whether the statute of limitations had expired. Jones v. City of St. Louis, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 14596 (8th Cir. June 17, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
An attorney-client letter was obtained by search warrant and it was isolated by the taint team. Because no case was pending at the time, the Sixth Amendment was not violated, and the dismissal or disqualification is an necessary remedy. United … Continue reading