Because he\u2019s in custody, defendant has a diminished expectation of getting his cell phone back. The slight delay in getting a warrant has no case law cited in support, not that it matters. United States v. Holloman, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6911 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 14, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cEven confining our own analysis to uncontested information and including omitted facts, the Whisenand Affidavit supported a probable cause finding in spades.\u201d Economan v. Luttrull, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 906 (7th Cir. Jan. 12, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant received constitutionally adequate notice of forfeiture, certified mail to the jail twice, which he claims he never saw. United States v. Marte, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6918 (D.N.H. Jan. 14, 2026).* [What? Jails fail to deliver mail inside? They sure do. Or take four weeks to deliver something after obvious receipt.]<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Unjustifiably slamming plaintiff to the ground states a claim against one defendant, not the others. Humble v. Harris Cnty., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7036 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 14, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Because he\u2019s in custody, defendant has a diminished expectation of getting his cell phone back. The slight delay in getting a warrant has no case law cited in support, not that it matters. United States v. Holloman, 2026 U.S. Dist. … Continue reading