This was a search warrant for indicia of defendant\u2019s residence. State v. Uranga, 2026 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 20 (Feb. 13, 2026) (\u00a7 56.18 n.2).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant was tried in 2012 and if his counsel had made a motion to suppress cell phone data before Carpenter in 2018, he would have lost because the state courts held there was no reasonable expectation of privacy back then. Therefore, no ineffective assistance of counsel in 2012. Bradford v. State, 2026 Ga. LEXIS 52 (Feb. 17, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s Franks challenge fails. She complained of three omissions, but probable cause was shown anyway. Also, \u201cUltimately, it was appropriate for the magistrate to consider the information provided by unnamed DHHS workers when determining whether probable cause supported the issuance of the warrant.\u201d People v. White, 2026 Mich. App. LEXIS 1306 (Feb. 13, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
This was a search warrant for indicia of defendant\u2019s residence. State v. Uranga, 2026 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 20 (Feb. 13, 2026) (\u00a7 56.18 n.2). Defendant was tried in 2012 and if his counsel had made a motion to suppress cell … Continue reading