Defendant\u2019s DNA was seized in 2009 and should have been purged, but it wasn\u2019t. He\u2019s later charged with another crime. A confirmatory test was run. The good faith exception applies to the DNA that wasn\u2019t purged like it was supposed to be. [Doesn\u2019t confirmation moot that?] State v. Miray, 2025 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 620 (Dec. 18, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff fled a traffic stop after initially pulling over. That was probable cause for arrest. Parham v. Robles, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 33043 (9th Cir. Dec. 18, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff\u2019s FAC survives a motion to dismiss: \u201cThe FAC alleges that Henry and Schwering \u2018violently\u2019 detained decedent and applied a vascular neck restraint while decedent was in a prone position, and Bjornstad used body weight force on decedent. The FAC also alleges that Mr. Jaramillo \u2018vomited profusely and appeared to have a seizure\u2019 and lost consciousness, and that Defendants’ use of force caused Mr. Jaramillo’s death.\u201d Est. of Jaramillo v. City of Spokane, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 33044 (9th Cir. Dec. 18, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s DNA was seized in 2009 and should have been purged, but it wasn\u2019t. He\u2019s later charged with another crime. A confirmatory test was run. The good faith exception applies to the DNA that wasn\u2019t purged like it was supposed … Continue reading