\u201cThe district court concluded, after weighing Defendant’s diminished possessory interest in the tablet and the legitimate interests of law enforcement, that under the circumstances, the nineteen-day delay between when the tablet was seized and when a search warrant was obtained was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. We agree and affirm.\u201d State v. Padilla, 2024 N.M. App. LEXIS 38 (July 15, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2255 petitioner\u2019s Franks claim fails for no substantial preliminary showing of materiality. United States v. Johnson, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123807 (S.D. Miss. July 15, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Tinted windows in the vehicle defendant was a passenger in doesn\u2019t create a reasonable expectation of privacy. United States v. Ellison, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123906 (E.D. Ky. July 11, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Yale New Haven Hospital security were not state actors for the Fourth Amendment. With the hospital, they were investigating drug tampering from a dispensing machine. United States v. Falzarano, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124545 (D. Conn. July 15, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cThe district court concluded, after weighing Defendant’s diminished possessory interest in the tablet and the legitimate interests of law enforcement, that under the circumstances, the nineteen-day delay between when the tablet was seized and when a search warrant was obtained … Continue reading