Claimant\u2019s disclaimer in the money should have been decided first, not the merits of the search. It\u2019s essentially a lack of standing. State ex rel. Kansas Highway Patrol v. $381,620 in U.S. Currency, 2026 Kan. LEXIS 125 (May 15, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The original cell phone warrant application was unsigned. Ultimately, trial court held that it couldn\u2019t be used by either side at the trial, except for impeachment if necessary. People v. Zakrzewski, 2026 NY Slip Op 03029 (3d Dept. May 14, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Even if partial suppression could have succeeded in this case [something doubtful], the remaining counts support the drug weight calculation. Antonio v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106688 (D.N.J. May 14, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The stop was with reasonable suspicion based on collective knowledge, and the search warrant was based on valid informant hearsay. United States v. Graves, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106702 (S.D. Ind. May 14, 2026).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Claimant\u2019s disclaimer in the money should have been decided first, not the merits of the search. It\u2019s essentially a lack of standing. State ex rel. Kansas Highway Patrol v. $381,620 in U.S. Currency, 2026 Kan. LEXIS 125 (May 15, 2026). … Continue reading