\u201cThis is not to say that Officer Rukamp was lying. The issue before the court is not whether the defense has proved that the officer lied; the issue is whether the government has met its burden of proof. In granting Bradshaw’s motion, the court concludes only that Officer Rukamp’s testimony lacks the kind of corroboration the court finds is needed under the circumstances of this case to carry the government’s burden of proof.\u201d United States v. Bradshaw, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95682 (E.D. Wis. May 20, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant can\u2019t argue that unannounced searches of his computers while on supervised release violate the Fourth Amendment. As a condition of release, however, it was justified because he had \u201cdecades\u201d worth of child pornography on his computers. United States v. Mayhew, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 11886 (2d Cir. May 16, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Officers prepared a warrant application and then developed new facts. There was also a protective sweep with a plain view. They amended the prior application, and they omitted anything dealing with the plain view. Probable cause was shown. United States v. Bimbow, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 11893 (2d Cir. May 16, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There was probable cause to arrest plaintiff for public intoxication. Burke v. City of Okla. City, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 12282 (10th Cir. May 20, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cThis is not to say that Officer Rukamp was lying. The issue before the court is not whether the defense has proved that the officer lied; the issue is whether the government has met its burden of proof. In granting … Continue reading