D.D.C.: Judge shopping after denial of SW inappropriate; could have appealed to DJ

The government having been turned down for a search warrant in the Central District of California for a cell phone of a prospective January 6th defendant, one alleged to be the third phone since then, for lack of showing likelihood anything would be on the phone, the remedy was to appeal to a district judge. Attempting it again in the D.D.C. was inappropriate. In re Search of One Digit. Device Currently Located at 601 4th St. NW, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86494 (D.D.C. May 14, 2024). Update: NLJ: Federal Judge Slams DC Federal Prosecutor for ‘Judge-Shopping’ in Jan. 6 Search Warrant Application (“U.S. Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey on Tuesday issued a memorandum opinion slamming U.S. Attorney Matthew M. Graves for ‘failing to follow established procedures for reconsideration and review of adverse judicial decisions.’”)

Probable cause is required for arrest, but only reasonable suspicion is required for a stop. People v. Whiles, 2024 IL App (4th) 231086, 2024 Ill. App. LEXIS 1115 (May 14, 2024).*

“In its order denying Clark’s motion to suppress, the trial court concluded Clark had not established any Fourth Amendment violation justifying the suppression of evidence. This demonstrates the trial court was aware that Clark’s suppression arguments were rooted in Fourth Amendment constitutional protections.” State v. Clark, 2024-Ohio-1869 (10th Dist. May 14, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Burden of pleading, Neutral and detached magistrate, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.