In this 2255, petitioner doesn\u2019t get discovery of his search warrant materials. \u201cThe Government responds that Wilson \u2018has failed to provide good cause as to why he is entitled to the materials that he requests\u2019 and instead, he \u2018only speculates and makes general arguments that the requested [documents] ‘may’ have a relevance to his \u00a7 2255 motion.\u2019 \u2026 Again, Wilson’s motion fails to show good cause for discovery as required by Rule 6. Instead, he speculates that the requested categories of documents \u2018may\u2019 be relevant to his motion \u2026 which is insufficient. Accordingly, this motion is denied.\u201d Wilson v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197596 (W.D. Wash. Sep. 1, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A prison gave information that defendant was trafficking drugs. A tracking warrant was obtained for his vehicle. While following it, defendant was stopped for a traffic offense and he had meth in the front seat. The tracking warrant was issued with probable cause, and the good faith exception applied in any event. United States v. Ray, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197147 (N.D. Okla. Sep. 1, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201c[T]he Court finds that none of the alleged statements or omissions Irizarry has identified are false, misleading, or evince reckless disregard on the part of Officer Rasile. Thus, the Court need not engage in the exercise of analyzing a hypothetical corrected affidavit.\u201d United States v. Irizarry, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197354 (D. Conn. Sep. 1, 2026).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In this 2255, petitioner doesn\u2019t get discovery of his search warrant materials. \u201cThe Government responds that Wilson \u2018has failed to provide good cause as to why he is entitled to the materials that he requests\u2019 and instead, he \u2018only speculates … Continue reading