A search warrant application that was notarized with an expired notary stamp was not a Fourth Amendment violation. McAlister v. Kansas, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55139 (D. Kan. Mar. 17, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2255 petitioner\u2019s ineffective assistance of counsel claim for not moving to suppress is foreclosed by the Fourth Circuit\u2019s addressing the merits of the search issue on appeal by plain error review as law of the case. Ojedokun v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54770 (D. Md. Mar. 17, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant had a meritorious motion to suppress his cell phone which all happened after Riley, but it wasn\u2019t pursued. New trial ordered with evidence suppressed. Commonwealth v. Hunter, 2026 PA Super 48 (Mar. 17, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The search warrant here for child pornography was particular and the time limit didn\u2019t really matter for staleness. In any event, the good faith exception applies. United States v. Johnson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54830 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A search warrant application that was notarized with an expired notary stamp was not a Fourth Amendment violation. McAlister v. Kansas, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55139 (D. Kan. Mar. 17, 2026). 2255 petitioner\u2019s ineffective assistance of counsel claim for not … Continue reading