Random and isolated interference with prisoner mail doesn\u2019t state a claim for relief. Malicious interference would, but that\u2019s not alleged. Tucker v. Horn, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 531 (6th Cir. Jan. 8, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Not search case, but defendant was suspected of robbery. He was arrested with three cell phones. Warrants were issued for the phones which revealed his location data, plans to rob the stores and then fence the goods. Malone v. State, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS 173 (Tex. App. \u2013 Ft. Worth Jan. 8, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff can point to no case even close on whether this stalking arrest was without probable cause, and thus violated clearly established law. \u201cMulcahey has not pled allegations from which we can infer a lack of probable cause, and even if she did, she points to no caselaw showing the officers violated a clearly established right in these circumstances.\u201d Mulcahey v. Twp. of Chocolay, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 666 (6th Cir. Jan. 8, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Failure to allege an arrest was without probable cause is failure to state a claim. Tulis v. Bennett, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 672 (6th Cir. Jan. 9, 2026).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Random and isolated interference with prisoner mail doesn\u2019t state a claim for relief. Malicious interference would, but that\u2019s not alleged. Tucker v. Horn, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 531 (6th Cir. Jan. 8, 2026). Not search case, but defendant was suspected … Continue reading