E.D.Va.: Reporting requirements of Corporate Transparency Act don’t violate 4A under California Bankers

Plaintiffs challenge the Corporate Transparency Act on several grounds. As to their claim the reporting requirement violates the Fourth Amendment, there is no likelihood of success on the merits under California Bankers decided 50 years ago. Community Ass’ns Inst. v. Yellen, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193958 (E.D. Va. Oct. 24, 2024).

The affiant officer’s estimate of age in child pornography was not a Franks issue, even if he was off by a bit. United States v. Echols, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194119 (D.S.D. Oct. 21, 2024).*

Driving a U-Haul truck in the middle of the night near the border in an area known for human smuggling was highly unusual and added up to reasonable suspicion. United States v. Emerson, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 27128 (5th Cir. Oct. 25, 2024).*

Stone bars 2254 relief: “A petitioner has received a full and fair opportunity if ‘(1) he clearly apprised the state court of his Fourth Amendment claim along with the factual basis for that claim, (2) the state court carefully and thoroughly analyzed the facts, and (3) the court applied the proper constitutional case law to those facts.’” He got that. Davis v. Thomas, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194243 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 25, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Issue preclusion, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Reasonable suspicion, Third Party Doctrine. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.