The search of defendant\u2019s car was unreasonable under the automobile exception because there was no probable cause to believe drugs or other evidence would be found there. Also, the inventory was invalid. United States v. Lujan, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30175 (D.N.M. Feb. 13, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cKeegan’s Fourth Amendment claim challenging the implementation of BOP’s policy under which his F[irst] S[tep] A[ct] time credits were allegedly miscalculated unquestionably presents a new Bivens context.\u201d Keegan v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30453 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 13, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There was justification for plaintiff\u2019s arrest for walking in the street instead of on a \u201cusable sidewalk\u201d such that cars had to dodge him. This was during a Breonna Taylor police shooting protest. Schilling v. Doherty, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 4471 (11th Cir. Feb. 13, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff was held for 10 months then he was found not guilty. He can\u2019t sue the court over that. Neal v. Alleghany Cty. Cir. Ct., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30298 (W.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The search of defendant\u2019s car was unreasonable under the automobile exception because there was no probable cause to believe drugs or other evidence would be found there. Also, the inventory was invalid. United States v. Lujan, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS … Continue reading