Officers had a warrant for defendant\u2019s house, and they didn\u2019t need reasonable suspicion for a drug dog sniff of his car parked in the driveway. State v. Desarro, 2026-Ohio-1672, 2026 Ohio App. LEXIS 1692 (6th Dist. May 7, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWe need not assess whether Defendants’ conduct was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment because, even construing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, there is no rule clearly establishing their actions as unconstitutional.\u201d Norman v. Horton, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 18313 (6th Cir. June 22, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Three tracking warrants were issued for defendant\u2019s vehicle, and they were issued with probable cause. United States v. Jackson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143856 (W.D.N.Y. June 29, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This electronics search warrant over a marijuana grow could be a broad period of time because of the amount of time to set it up and operate it. United States v. Koistinen, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143173 (D. Ariz. June 26, 2026).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Officers had a warrant for defendant\u2019s house, and they didn\u2019t need reasonable suspicion for a drug dog sniff of his car parked in the driveway. State v. Desarro, 2026-Ohio-1672, 2026 Ohio App. LEXIS 1692 (6th Dist. May 7, 2026).* \u201cWe … Continue reading