Search under a general administrative tax warrant under state law violates the Fourth Amendment. This involved a search of a house where the taxes were not paid on illegal drugs. Also, it was issued by the Secretary of Revenue and not a judicial officer. State v. Hickman, 2025 N.C. App. LEXIS 784 (Nov. 5, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The district court erred in dismissing this case as moot. It sought recovery of seized money and the affidavits for warrant. Payment of the money didn\u2019t make it moot. Cal. Palms Addiction Recovery Campus, Inc. v. United States, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 29180 (6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There was consent to search defendant\u2019s cell phone, and the search incident of his truck was reasonable. United States v. Smtih, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218961 (D. Kan. Nov. 6, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cSomehow dismissing the reports of interview, the text messages, and their own surveillance, Defendant claims the FBI had no knowledge that a drug transaction was about to occur. Such facts are not required because probable cause is \u2018a fluid concept\u2014turning on the assessment of probabilities in particular factual contexts\u2014not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules.\u2019 Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237, 243 (2013).\u201d The CI\u2019s information was creditable. United States v. Oca, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218877 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 6, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Search under a general administrative tax warrant under state law violates the Fourth Amendment. This involved a search of a house where the taxes were not paid on illegal drugs. Also, it was issued by the Secretary of Revenue and … Continue reading