\u201c[T]he warrant in this case authorized collection of location data and certain message content surrounding the crimes. While the warrant could have been more particular by limiting each category using the language \u2018related to the crimes,\u2019 the warrant’s incorporation of the attached affidavit served the same function. Moreover, unlike the search in Herrera, which extracted personal data and text messages, the search of records and cell phone location data did not involve the extraction of files from Rodriguez-Ortiz’s phone or a search of its \u2018entire contents.\u2019 Id. The officers used the search of outgoing and incoming calls and text messages to establish Rodriguez-Ortiz’s communications before, during, and after the crimes.\u201d People v. Rodriguez-Ortiz, 2025 COA 61, 2025 Colo. App. LEXIS 904 (June 26, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The juvenile\u2019s claim that she was unreasonably arrested with force such that it was an unreasonable seizure was not presented below and waived. In re A.D., 2025-Ohio-2349 (9th Dist. July 2, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant wasn\u2019t seized until actually detained. The officer was on foot patrol in a high crime area known for drug sales. Defendant\u2019s presence alone wasn\u2019t reasonable suspicion, but here the officer had more. Shining his flashlight on defendant wasn\u2019t yet a seizure. Defendant discarded a gun in flight, and that was abandonment. United States v. Wright, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125571 (E.D. Va. July 1, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201c[T]he warrant in this case authorized collection of location data and certain message content surrounding the crimes. While the warrant could have been more particular by limiting each category using the language \u2018related to the crimes,\u2019 the warrant’s incorporation of … Continue reading