OH8: State showed need for evidence for further investigation after indictment dismissed without prejudice so no return

Evidence was seized, including a cell phone, and defendant was charged with a violent crime. As the case progressed to trial, the state moved to dismiss without prejudice so it could investigate further. Defendant sought return of the evidence. On the state’s representation that this case is not over and could be re-indicted because it will still be needed, the motion is denied. State v. Glenn, 2023-Ohio-4654, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 4462 (8th Dist. Dec. 21, 2023).

Plaintiffs visited Julian Assange at the Ecuador embassy in London, and the CIA was allegedly able to spy on their conversations. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in this government spying for at least two reasons: First, they knew the CIA was listening when they went there. Second, this was a government building in another country subject to their own security concerns and listening, which they were. Kunstler v. CIA, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226954 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2023).*

“The claim that there was an illegal search does not demonstrate prejudice because ‘when a defendant is convicted pursuant to his guilty plea rather than a trial, the validity of that conviction cannot be affected by an alleged Fourth Amendment violation because the conviction does not rest in any way on evidence that may have been improperly seized.’ Haring v. Prosise, 462 U.S. 306, 321 (1983).” United States v. Caldwell, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227136 (D. Md. Dec. 19, 2023).*