Plaintiff in a halfway house had no constitutional right not to have female staff members see his genitals when he peed in a cup for a drug test. Zullinger v. York County CCC Halfway House, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78404 (M.D. Pa. June 3, 2013).*<\/p>\n
Defendant did not properly object to the search warrant in this case, so he waived the claim, also considering the presumption of validity of a search warrant. \u201cSearch warrants are presumed valid, and \u2018where a presumption of the validity of a search warrant exists, the burden is upon the defendant to overturn that presumption.\u2019 Jones v. State, 783 N.E.2d 1132, 1136 (Ind. 2003).\u2019\u201d Speer v. State<\/a>, 2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 266 (May 31, 2013).*<\/p>\n Defendant\u2019s stop was without reasonable suspicion, and everything that happened during the stop couldn\u2019t be attenuated from that. Suppression granted. United States v. Lunas, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78769 (W.D. Pa. June 5, 2013).*<\/p>\n The affidavit for search warrant fairly showed probable cause, and defendant\u2019s quibbling over one detail did not undermine the PC. \u201cAlthough this description does not contain a physical description of the size, shape, or color of the items to be seized it does provide more than a generic description.\u201d It was clear. United States v. Beck, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79055 (E.D. N.C. June 5, 2013).*<\/p>\n A window tint stop did not prohibit the officers from running wants or warrants on him and ordering him out of the car. United States v. Castle, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78412 (W.D. Tenn. May 17, 2013).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading