Defendant\u2019s refusal to comply with a search warrant for biometric opening of his cell phone (here, a face scan) was admissible at trial to show consciousness of guilt. \u201cGiven that \u2018[i]t is today universally conceded that the fact of an accused’s \u2026 resistance to arrest \u2026 and related conduct, are admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt, and thus of guilt itself,\u2019 \u2026 the Court AGREES that evidence supporting Defendant’s refusal to cooperate with the court Order to unlock his phone at the time of his arrest is admissible to show consciousness of guilt.\u201d United States v. Simons, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96683 (S.D. Cal. May 1, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
State law defines the \u00a7 1983 statute of limitations, but federal law controls when it accrues. Here, plaintiff\u2019s own exhibits showed he knew about the claim in 2015, ten years before he sued. Jabr v. Dep’t of Taxation, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96424 (S.D. Ohio May 1, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff claims damages from a search warrant to obtain IP address information. He doesn\u2019t have standing in the third-party records. Pryor v. Gregory, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96428 (N.D. Miss. Apr. 30, 2026).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s refusal to comply with a search warrant for biometric opening of his cell phone (here, a face scan) was admissible at trial to show consciousness of guilt. \u201cGiven that \u2018[i]t is today universally conceded that the fact of an … Continue reading