Defendant\u2019s cell phone was seized at ATL Customs for a border search, and it went elsewhere for a forensic search. That search was still a border search. United States v. Vereen, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 238218 (N.D. Ga. Sep. 1, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The affidavit showed nexus and probable cause to his car and house. As to the house: \u201cThe affidavit also demonstrated a sufficient nexus between Tooley’s drug trafficking and the Brockton house. Agents’ surveillance of the property and the location data from Tooley’s cell phone supported a reasonable — indeed, strong — inference that Tooley was living at the house. And during their September 10 FaceTime calls before the controlled purchase, Tooley showed CW-1 how he was cooking the cocaine himself and weighed the drugs on a scale.\u201d United States v. Tooley, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 238230 (D. Mass. Oct. 19, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cHere, according to Plaintiff’s allegations, Officer Gill responded to an attempted assault on Plaintiff by pointing her gun at Plaintiff, the victim. \u2026 Gill continued to brandish her firearm at Plaintiff even as Crimm continued to stab Plaintiff. Id. Weighing these facts under the Graham factors, this Court finds that Plaintiff states a claim under \u00a7 1983 for violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.\u201d Young v. Gill, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 238287 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 19, 2026).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s cell phone was seized at ATL Customs for a border search, and it went elsewhere for a forensic search. That search was still a border search. United States v. Vereen, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 238218 (N.D. Ga. Sep. 1, … Continue reading