CBP seized and searched defendant\u2019s cell phones at the border under existing authority. After subsequent case law called that into question, the government sought a search warrant for the phones disclosing all the facts. The subsequent warrant was valid. United States v. Walden, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222763 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Unreasonable killing of a family dog is a seizure of property under the Fourth Amendment. Bledsoe v. City of Caddo Valley, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221931 (W.D. Ark. Oct. 14, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cPlaintiff alleges only that he was forcefully removed from his vehicle without his consent. Such allegations are insufficient to establish a claim for excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.\u201d He refused an order to get out of the car. \u201cPlaintiff responded, \u2018I do not consent to any of this.\u2019 \u2026 Officer Neal answered, \u2018Shut up, this isn’t Tik Tok.\u2019\u201d Davis v. Olivera, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221894 (D.S.C. Sep. 30, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ohio provides a mechanism to challenge searches and seizures in state court, so there\u2019s no 2254 remedy just because you don\u2019t like the outcome. McGee v. Warden, Belmont Corr. Inst., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222816 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 12, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
CBP seized and searched defendant\u2019s cell phones at the border under existing authority. After subsequent case law called that into question, the government sought a search warrant for the phones disclosing all the facts. The subsequent warrant was valid. United … Continue reading