Officers were surveilling a van that they believed might have a connection to an unsolved homicide. They observed what appeared to be hand-to-hand drug transactions, and the van\u2019s LPN was expired. They approached. There were others around the van, and plaintiff was handcuffed for safety. A drug dog was called for, and that took 45 minutes to arrive. The dog instinctively jumped in the open vehicle, but nothing was found. Defendant\u2019s summary judgment is granted. If plaintiff suffered an emotional or other consequences from the dog sniff, he fails to show any damages. Aunhk Ra Aunhkhotep v. Kopfensteiner, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2625 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 7, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff\u2019s First and Fourth Amendment claims over being put in restricted housing unit in the state pen are dismissed. The Fourth Amendment doesn\u2019t apply in a prison. Stansbury v. Harry, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2252 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 7, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On the totality, defendant impliedly consented to the entry of the officers into his house by his nonverbal conduct. State v. Mitchell, 2025 Ida. App. LEXIS 1 (Jan. 7, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Oregon\u2019s conversational privacy statute (both sides have to know about recording) survives constitutional challenge because it is content neutral. Project Veritas v. Schmidt, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 281 (9th Cir. Jan. 7, 2025) (en banc).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Officers were surveilling a van that they believed might have a connection to an unsolved homicide. They observed what appeared to be hand-to-hand drug transactions, and the van\u2019s LPN was expired. They approached. There were others around the van, and … Continue reading