In re Application for AT&T Non-Disclosure Order, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218179 (D.N.M. Nov. 4, 2025), is denied for lack of certification from a supervising official as required by statute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant was subject to a probation search waiver, and there was also probable cause for a warrant. United States v. German, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215173 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 31, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Officers did not violate clearly established law and their force escalated as force was escalated against them. This happened inside plaintiff\u2019s home, and she had in-home video which was corroborated by the bodycams of the officers. Johnson v. Smith, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 29049 (5th Cir. Nov. 5, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ohio rules clearly provide a \u201cfull and fair opportunity\u201d to litigate search and seizure claims, so habeas relief for that claim is denied. McGee v. Warden, Belmont Corr. Inst., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218066 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 5, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In re Application for AT&T Non-Disclosure Order, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218179 (D.N.M. Nov. 4, 2025), is denied for lack of certification from a supervising official as required by statute. Defendant was subject to a probation search waiver, and there … Continue reading