D.Minn.: “Cars on the property” was particular enough for SW

“Cars on the property” was particular enough for the search warrant for defendant’s property. United States v. Stucky, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166040 (D. Minn. Sep. 16, 2024).

Plaintiff inmate stated enough to proceed that he was subjected to harassing cell searches in prison for filing a civil rights action against prison. Benton v. Stanzione, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165599 (D.N.J. Sep. 12, 2024).*

Defendant had no standing in the house that was searched. He was essentially a squatter before his arrest and the house was in foreclosure and everybody kicked out. Whatever expectation of privacy he might have had before was gone. United States v. Frazier, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 23258 (4th Cir. Sep. 11, 2024).*

Defendant’s state probation search condition didn’t require reasonable suspicion or other justification. Here it was based on information from an informant. United States v. LeBron, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165782 (D. Alaska Sep. 13, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Particularity, Prison and jail searches, Probation / Parole search, Scope of search, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.