There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the use of a cell phone in prison. United States v. Brandt, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129412 (N.D. Ga. June 13, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This line in defendant\u2019s PSR leads to denial of his motion to shorten supervised release. \u201cFausnaught confronted a source of information that led to the 1995 search warrant, calling him a \u2018snitch\u2019, remarking that \u2018snitches get stitches,\u2019 and threatening to have the source killed.\u201d United States v. Fausnaught, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130416 (M.D. Pa. July 9, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The trial court is to compare the credibility of the officer\u2019s testimony against the video which did not happen here. State v. Thompson, 2025-Ohio-2427 (5th Dist. July 8, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The fact the officer could have attempted to resolve the discrepancy of the VIN not matching the license plate a different way doesn\u2019t mean the officer acted unreasonably, quoting United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 686-87 (1985) (“[T]he question is not simply whether some other alternative was available, but whether the police acted unreasonably in failing to recognize or to pursue it”). United States v. Barrow, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 16896 (5th Cir. July 9, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the use of a cell phone in prison. United States v. Brandt, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129412 (N.D. Ga. June 13, 2025). This line in defendant\u2019s PSR leads to denial of his … Continue reading