Plaintiff\u2019s \u00a7 1983 complaint over a roadside vaginal body cavity search concededly states enough to go forward as a potential Fourth Amendment violation. Some of the state claims fail. Upton v. Moulds, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159277 (S.D. Miss. July 17, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cFruit of the poisonous tree is an evidentiary doctrine that, while premised on the Fourth Amendment, is not itself a claim or cause of action. See United States v. Gorman, 859 F.3d 706, 716 (9th Cir. 2017). This claim must be dismissed without leave to amend, as amendment would be futile.\u201d Knarr v. Marteeny, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160043 (D. Or. July 20, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant is correct that the CI\u2019s information alone wasn\u2019t enough here for a warrant. But it was combined with two observed hand-to-hand sales, and combined that was enough. United States v. Ward, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 21224 (6th Cir. July 17, 2026).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Plaintiff\u2019s \u00a7 1983 complaint over a roadside vaginal body cavity search concededly states enough to go forward as a potential Fourth Amendment violation. Some of the state claims fail. Upton v. Moulds, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159277 (S.D. Miss. July … Continue reading