CT: Exigency shown for animal control entry

“Our scrupulous examination of the entire record supports the court’s conclusion that the officers had reasonable cause to believe that the dogs contained within the barn were in imminent harm and neglected, or cruelly treated.” City of Middletown v. Wagner, 2024 Conn. App. LEXIS 245 (Sep. 24, 2024).

Defendant’s application for a writ against his search warrant for a typo discovered 12 years later is too late, and didn’t matter anyway. State v. Workman, 2024 La. App. LEXIS 1503 (La. App. 5 Cir Sep. 23, 2024).*

In objecting to the R&R: “Defendant’s second objection is a general one. Other than stating his disagreement with the conclusion that the two warrantless seizures of defendant’s cell phone were not violations of the Fourth Amendment, defendant does not point to or explain the source of any error or mistake in the R&R’s reasoning.” United States v. Smith, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170276 (E.D. Tenn. Sep. 20, 2024).*

The magistrate’s determination in the R&R was that plain view applied. Defendant’s objection to the warrant was not at all responsive. United States v. Bankhead, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170666 (D. Minn. Sep. 23, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Burden of pleading, Emergency / exigency, Waiver. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.