You don\u2019t get a hearing on a motion to suppress without showing a factual dispute to be resolved. United States v. Figueroa-Figueroa, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218467 (D.P.R. Nov. 4, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“A claim that a law enforcement official used excessive force is to be analyzed under the objective reasonableness standard of the Fourth Amendment.” The undisputed facts from the bodycam establish the reasonableness of the force. Padilla v. City of New York, 2025 NYLJ LEXIS 3465 (Queens Co. Nov. 6, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cGilbert fails to demonstrate that he did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim in state court under Stone. Indeed, Gilbert’s Motion to Suppress was thoroughly briefed, a lengthy evidentiary hearing was held in which two witnesses provided testimony, the state court considered the merits of Gilbert’s motion in a 19-page detailed order, and the Nevada Supreme Court issued an 18-page, reportable opinion discussing only the suppression issue. \u2026 Accordingly, not only did Gilbert have a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim, but his claim was exceedingly and painstakingly reviewed.\u201d Gilbert v. Henley, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218780 (D. Nev. Nov. 5, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
You don\u2019t get a hearing on a motion to suppress without showing a factual dispute to be resolved. United States v. Figueroa-Figueroa, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218467 (D.P.R. Nov. 4, 2025). “A claim that a law enforcement official used excessive … Continue reading