A filter team wasn\u2019t required to examine seized photographs. Overseizure doesn\u2019t make a search unreasonable unless it was flagrant, and this wasn\u2019t. United States v. Alford, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87350 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 20, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cEven if the pre-warrant look was unlawful, the results of the subsequent search remain valid under the independent source doctrine. \u2026 The District Court found (and Chapman does not challenge) that the officers would have applied for the search warrant even without seeing Chapman’s belongings inside the apartment. Additionally, the warrant application established probable cause without the information gleaned from the officers’ look inside the apartment.\u201d United States v. Chapman, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 11417 (3d Cir. Apr. 22, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
An administrative subpoena for subscriber payment information on an internet account has no constitutional protection under Carpenter. Commonwealth v. Zealor, 2026 PA Super 81 (Apr. 22, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A filter team wasn\u2019t required to examine seized photographs. Overseizure doesn\u2019t make a search unreasonable unless it was flagrant, and this wasn\u2019t. United States v. Alford, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87350 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 20, 2026). \u201cEven if the pre-warrant … Continue reading