The search of defendant\u2019s hotel room was without probable cause or any other justification for a warrantless search, here the community caretaking function. That search supported a warranted search, but it was necessary to the finding of probable cause for that, too. Thus, the search was unreasonable and in violation of the Fourth Amendment and the motion to suppress is granted. United States v. Douthard, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138676 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 5, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for not predicting Fourth Amendment future law, especially where the law isn\u2019t clear. United States v. Plascencia, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138227 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 5, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Entering defendant\u2019s car was valid as a prelude to an inventory. United States v. Jordan, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138249 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 5, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Loper Bright and Dobbs have nothing to do with the Fourth Amendment or successive habeas petitions and CSLI. \u201cMeanwhile, Gibson points to no new evidence of innocence.\u201d Gibson v. United States, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 19525 (7th Cir. Aug. 5, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The search of defendant\u2019s hotel room was without probable cause or any other justification for a warrantless search, here the community caretaking function. That search supported a warranted search, but it was necessary to the finding of probable cause for … Continue reading