Defendant tried to retrieve a suitcase from Southwest Airlines in Omaha while not having been on a flight or having a claim check. The suspected bag arrived on the next flight from Phoenix, and it was taken by a SWA employee, locked away, and inventoried according to airline policies. Drugs were found. There\u2019s no proof that the airline employee was acting as a governmental agent at the time of the search. United States v. Wells, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190697 (D. Neb. Aug. 8, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Even if the first warrant was invalid because of allegedly involuntary statements, it was separable from the second for another place based on other information. And the statements weren\u2019t involuntary anyway. Denied. United States v. Panetti, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189891 (D. Minn. Sep. 26, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court disagrees that defendant was blocked in and \u201cseized\u201d on an apartment parking lot. Then there was a plain view. State v. Vargas, 2025-Ohio-4482 (2d Dist. Sep. 26, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There was probable cause for defendant\u2019s stop for a traffic offense. The smell of marijuana from the car and defendant\u2019s admissions justified the vehicle search. State v. Waters, 2025-Ohio-4479 (1st Dist. Sep. 26, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant tried to retrieve a suitcase from Southwest Airlines in Omaha while not having been on a flight or having a claim check. The suspected bag arrived on the next flight from Phoenix, and it was taken by a SWA … Continue reading