The government showed exigency for what they feared was imminent destruction of drugs for a warrantless entry and protective sweep. Then a warrant was obtained with probable cause. United States v. Banks, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163658 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 5, 2024),* adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163049 (N.D. Ga. Sep. 11, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for not making a Franks challenge to car being on the curtilage when the direct appeal held that it wasn\u2019t on the curtilage. May-Shaw v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163061 (W.D. Mich. Sep. 11, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cPlaintiffs’ \u00a7 1983 claim is based on allegations that Officer Clark deprived them of their rights under the Fourth Amendment and\/or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by detaining them or failing to stop their detention and interrogation on account of their race. In the absence of a viable conspiracy allegation, Plaintiffs have not alleged that Officer Clark had anything to do with the initial decision to engage with Plaintiffs, and there was nothing alleged about Officer Clark’s actions that suggest he was engaged in a racially-motivated investigation. In the absence of allegations giving rise to a plausible inference that Officer Clark interrupts on-going investigations if the subject is White or that he was an integral part of Officer Madfes’ alleged constitutional violations \u2026, no plausible inference of discriminatory motive on Officer Clark’s part arises from the circumstances alleged.\u201d Khalif v. City of Belvedere, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 23122 (9th Cir. Sep. 11, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The government showed exigency for what they feared was imminent destruction of drugs for a warrantless entry and protective sweep. Then a warrant was obtained with probable cause. United States v. Banks, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163658 (N.D. Ga. Aug. … Continue reading