CA10: Parole supervisor could conduct parole search

The fact a parole supervisor conducted the parole search and not a “parole officer” doesn’t make the parole search unreasonable. United States v. Barron, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 258 (10th Cir. Jan. 7, 2025).

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is more vague than the Complaint, and it seeks federal court intervention in a state criminal proceeding. Dismissed. Hood v. Truhlar, 15591, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1711 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 6, 2025).*

2255 denied: “Even if the search warrant incorporated the alleged misrepresentations and omissions that are not directly contradicted by the record, the search warrant would still be supported by probable cause.” United States v. Valentine, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 235637 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 12, 2024),* adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 663 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 3, 2025).*

The cell phone search warrant here did not mandate return of the phone after the search. Due to staffing issues, the FBI didn’t get to finally search defendant’s phone for years, and it was searched years later. United States v. Banwari, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2132 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 6, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Issue preclusion, Probable cause, Probation / Parole search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.