The seizing officer could not authenticate defendant\u2019s notebooks as evidence at the trial. He had no knowledge about how they came into being. United States v. Sherman, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5696 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 12, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s admission at the time of the search that the drugs in his workspace were his were admissible, and that was sufficient to support his conviction despite his denial when testifying. State v. Rollison, 2025-Ohio-72 (3d Dist. Jan. 13, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe Court cannot accept Mr. Wright’s assertion that removing his underwear in the emergency department, during his treatment for a drug overdose, was an unreasonable search. Although Mr. Wright contends that removing an overdose patient’s clothes is unnecessary and naloxone is the reasonable treatment, he offers no record evidence to show that it was unreasonable for HCMC medical staff to remove his underwear as part of their treatment plan for him\u2014the issue was not a subject of this Court’s motions hearing whatsoever.\u201d United States v. Wright, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 236845 (D. Minn. Nov. 25, 2024), adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4921 (D. Minn. Jan. 10, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The seizing officer could not authenticate defendant\u2019s notebooks as evidence at the trial. He had no knowledge about how they came into being. United States v. Sherman, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5696 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 12, 2025). Defendant\u2019s admission at … Continue reading