The delayed search of defendant\u2019s computer was not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment or Rule 41(e)(2)(B) because it wasn\u2019t practical to do so at the scene. United States v. White, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117526 (W.D. Ky. July 3, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Temporary seizure of belongings in office when employee was discharged was reasonable. \u201cAt most, Olson alleges that defendants \u2018seized\u2019 his belongings subsequent to the county board’s vote to suspend him for possible misconduct as part of the Lighthouse complaints investigation. As for this narrow claim, federal courts have generally held that the discharge or suspension of an employee greatly reduces, if not eliminates, his reasonable expectation of privacy in his former workplace.\u201d Olson v. Sauk Cty., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117667 (W.D. Wis. July 2, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The search here was justified by the plain view of the officer standing outside defendant\u2019s car looking in seeing a bag of marijuana and a firearm. United States v. Blassingame, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117969 (S.D. Ill. July 3, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The delayed search of defendant\u2019s computer was not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment or Rule 41(e)(2)(B) because it wasn\u2019t practical to do so at the scene. United States v. White, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117526 (W.D. Ky. July 3, 2024).* … Continue reading