Defendant was in a federal detention center pending trial, and his cell was searched and legal materials for trial were seized. His Fourth Amendment claim fails on its face. His Sixth Amendment claim also fails because a BOP attorney screened the materials, and defendant doesn\u2019t show that his representation was interfered with. Byrd v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209953 (D.N.J. Sep. 16, 2026). [Thus, the attorney was a de facto master.]<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Pausing 11 seconds after a traffic light turned green was not reasonable suspicion of OVI. City of Cleveland v. McClairn, 2026-Ohio-3641 (8th Dist. Sep. 17, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cDefendant’s statement to Officer Habenicht\u2014\u2018That’s not my bag, you won’t find no ID of mine in there!\u2019\u2014is functionally indistinguishable from the disclaimer the Fourth Circuit found dispositive in Ferebee, where the defendant’s assertion that a backpack was \u2018actually not his\u2019 completed an abandonment the moment it was uttered.\u201d United States v. White, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209926 (W.D.N.C. Sep. 16, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant was in a federal detention center pending trial, and his cell was searched and legal materials for trial were seized. His Fourth Amendment claim fails on its face. His Sixth Amendment claim also fails because a BOP attorney screened … Continue reading