The government opposes the unsealing of the search warrant papers in this case because the investigation is still ongoing. The first motion was denied about a year ago. On renewal of the motion, the court finds the investigation still ongoing, and the government still has an interest in keeping it sealed. Maybe later. In re Search Warrants Issued November 30, 2022, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182963 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 7, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Selective or discriminatory prosecution is a Fourteenth Amendment, not a Fourth Amendment claim. Ex parte Aparicio, 2024 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 739 (Oct. 9, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201c\u2018[T]he whole is often greater than the sum of its parts\u2014especially when the parts are viewed in isolation.\u2019 D.C. v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 60-61 (2018). Here, the Affidavit’s recitation of the totality of the circumstances, as outlined above, provided a substantial basis for the Magistrate Judge to have determined that there was a fair probability that evidence of Mr. Carothers’s alleged crimes would be found on the cell phones. Thus, this Court cannot say that, based on the Affidavit, the Magistrate Judge lacked a substantial basis upon which to find probable cause. Accordingly, the Court will DENY Mr. Carothers’s Motion.\u201d United States v. Carothers, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184776 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 8, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The government opposes the unsealing of the search warrant papers in this case because the investigation is still ongoing. The first motion was denied about a year ago. On renewal of the motion, the court finds the investigation still ongoing, … Continue reading