\u201cThe fact that the warrant was signed by Justice Tully as an Acting Supreme Court Justice is irrelevant; Justice Tully was authorized to issue the search warrant regardless of whether she was sitting as a Criminal Court Judge or as a Supreme Court Justice, because she \u2018was exercising the preliminary jurisdiction of the local criminal court.\u2019\u201d People v. Jean, 2024 NYLJ LEXIS 2420 (Kings Co. July 29, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWe affirm the district court’s dismissal of the claims against the City. However, we conclude that the district court erred in granting Officer Sletten’s motion to dismiss, because the video recording did not \u2018blatantly contradict\u2019 the allegations of the amended complaint. We hold that the plaintiff’s allegations of excessive force under \u00a7 1983, when properly construed, are sufficient to state a claim. We therefore reverse the district court’s judgment in favor of Officer Sletten on the excessive force claim and remand that claim to the court for further proceedings.\u201d Doriety v. Sletten, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 18672 (4th Cir. July 29, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Not a search issue, but I marvel at the number of people caught by their social media posts and accounts. LA Times: Smash-and-grab robbers coordinated crimes on social media. Eight culprits now face prison<\/a> by Salvador Hernandez<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u201cThe fact that the warrant was signed by Justice Tully as an Acting Supreme Court Justice is irrelevant; Justice Tully was authorized to issue the search warrant regardless of whether she was sitting as a Criminal Court Judge or as … Continue reading