\u201cWith the benefit of advocacy and adversarial briefing, it is easy to look back over Special Agent Bell’s affidavit and reflect on the facts that are missing or additional investigative steps that could have been taken but were not. But the task before me is to evaluate the facts set out within the four corners of the affidavit and decide whether the Magistrate Judge had no substantial basis for concluding that probable cause had been met. Chiu, 36 F.4th at 297.\u201d United States v. Bridges, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193226 (D. Me. Aug. 27, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s claim he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle search is unpreserved. People v. Sessoms, 2026 NY Slip Op 05117 (2d Dept. Aug. 26, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff\u2019s complaint against individuals at the University of California for judicial deception for a misleading affidavit for search warrant is barred by limitations. Generally, a person is usually on notice of the search when it happens. Doe v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192985 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2026).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cWith the benefit of advocacy and adversarial briefing, it is easy to look back over Special Agent Bell’s affidavit and reflect on the facts that are missing or additional investigative steps that could have been taken but were not. But … Continue reading