Defendant\u2019s pants were transported from the hospital to the jail, and inevitable discovery covers their search. United States v. Gibbins, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 1432 (4th Cir. Jan. 21, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The warrant for five cell phones was executed within the 14-day limitation. The fact one was searched again wasn\u2019t sufficient grounds to suppress. Nor did it violate Rule 41. United States v. Medina, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9926 (D.R.I. Jan. 20, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The prosecutors who sought these warrants and the judge who signed off on them were absolutely immune from suit. Ornelas v. California, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9953 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant argued below that the lack of a proper return voided the search, but the court held that a return was ministerial and didn\u2019t prejudice him. He abandoned that argument on appeal. Wright v. State, 2026 Miss. App. LEXIS 20 (Jan. 20, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s pants were transported from the hospital to the jail, and inevitable discovery covers their search. United States v. Gibbins, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 1432 (4th Cir. Jan. 21, 2026). The warrant for five cell phones was executed within the … Continue reading