The warrant here required “photographing his hands, fingers, and forearms.” The search warrant\u2019s particularity wasn\u2019t violated by manipulating his hands to allegedly mimic what was seen in child pornography photographs off his computer. Search warrants don\u2019t have to specify how they are executed. United States v. Akhter, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96842 (E.D. Va. May 1, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The state can\u2019t appeal an order suppressing bodycam video for violation of state statute. It doesn\u2019t fit within the rule permitting appeals of motions to suppress. People v. Schneider, 2026 CO 27 (May 4, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Matching the description of a suspect and being in proximity to the crime is reasonable suspicion. United States v. Johnson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98540 (E.D. Pa. May 5, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant was being questioned in an interrogation room, and officers were seeking a search warrant for GSR on his hands. He needed to pee, but they wouldn\u2019t let him go alone because they didn\u2019t want him to wash his hands. He went. Then he confessed while waiting for the warrant. No Fourth or Fifth Amendment violation. Dickey v. State, 2026 Ga. LEXIS 133 (May 5, 2026).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The warrant here required “photographing his hands, fingers, and forearms.” The search warrant\u2019s particularity wasn\u2019t violated by manipulating his hands to allegedly mimic what was seen in child pornography photographs off his computer. Search warrants don\u2019t have to specify how … Continue reading