A prison security official\u2019s accessing a potential visitor\u2019s social media accounts to determine whether the visitor is some kind of security threat doesn\u2019t violate the Fourth Amendment. Lawrence v. Zack, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161377 (D. Conn. Sep. 9, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Petitioner had his full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim in state court and he did. He can\u2019t retry it now in a 2254. Knox v. Dixon, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161769 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 20, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In light of Bruen, it wasn\u2019t unlawful for defendant to have a firearm on his person, so his detention and arrest for that was unreasonable. United States v. Shepherd, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161714 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 6, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201c\u2018The exclusionary rule applies in federal court to violations of the Indian Civil Rights Act’s Fourth Amendment counterpart.\u2019\u201d United States v. Jefferson, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161843 (W.D. Wash. Sep. 9, 2024) (recognizing rule).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A prison security official\u2019s accessing a potential visitor\u2019s social media accounts to determine whether the visitor is some kind of security threat doesn\u2019t violate the Fourth Amendment. Lawrence v. Zack, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161377 (D. Conn. Sep. 9, 2024). … Continue reading