Plaintiff\u2019s parole search waiver for his house includes his curtilage. Kennedy v. White Cty., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180862 (E.D. Ark. Sep. 16, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Admission of a photograph of defendant\u2019s house taken from off the property did not violate the curtilage. As to his Franks challenge: “‘Mere imprecision does not, by itself, show falsity.’ Moody<\/em>, 931 F.3d at 372. An inaccuracy that is ‘innocent or even negligent’ will not meet the high standard required to warrant a hearing. Id.<\/em> at 371. Defendant has at best shown ambiguous or imprecise language and fails to show an intentional falsity.” United States v. Newbold, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182008 (M.D.N.C. Sep. 17, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n West Virginia continues to adhere to the rule that objective intentions matter for a stop, not subjective ones. State v. Roberts, 2025 W. Va. LEXIS 335 (Sep. 16, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n Plaintiff stated a claim for excessive force for police officers injuring him during a pipeline protest where he had to be cut out of his sleeping dragon device<\/a>. He was only committing a non-violent misdemeanor when he was injured. Locke v. County of Hubbard<\/a>, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 23990 (8th Cir. Sep. 17, 2025).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Plaintiff\u2019s parole search waiver for his house includes his curtilage. Kennedy v. White Cty., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180862 (E.D. Ark. Sep. 16, 2025). Admission of a photograph of defendant\u2019s house taken from off the property did not violate the … Continue reading