Electronic devices seized in California could be searched in Pennsylvania. United States v. Carter, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168014 (W.D. Pa. Sep. 18, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Under established precedent, the smell of marijuana alone coming from defendant\u2019s car permits a search of the trunk. United States v. Morton, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168000 (E.D. La. Sep. 17, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Indiana Tax Court considers a Fourth Amendment challenge to an assessment inspection. \u201cHere, the statute is much more narrowly tailored and requires prior notification of the owner or occupant before inspection, and the discovery order gave Bougie a thirty-day period in which to allow the Assessor or the Assessor’s representative entry to inspect the property. There is also the question of whether Bougie had a reasonable expectation of privacy from a scheduled inspection, especially as that inspection was needed to verify an adjustment in his property assessment that he requested. [\u00b6] The Court does not address that question or the underlying statute’s constitutionality as no inspection ever took place. The Court, thus, rejects Bougie’s Fourth Amendment claim.\u201d Bougie v. Chapman<\/a>, 2024 Ind. Tax LEXIS 40 (T.C. Sep. 18, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Electronic devices seized in California could be searched in Pennsylvania. United States v. Carter, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168014 (W.D. Pa. Sep. 18, 2024). Under established precedent, the smell of marijuana alone coming from defendant\u2019s car permits a search of … Continue reading