N.D.Ohio: Alleged mishandling of drugs during execution of SW didn’t make them inadmissible

Even if the officers (mis)handled the drugs during the search, they’d still come into evidence at trial. United States v. McDonald, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11844 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 22, 2025).

The trial court suppressed this cell phone search as overbroad and the good faith exception didn’t apply. The state appealed then confessed the trial court was right. People v. Burns, 2025 Mich. App. LEXIS 529 (Jan. 22, 2025).*

Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment privacy claim about a conversation in the police station that a police officer listened to was properly denied. Reed v. Swanson, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 1295 (6th Cir. Jan. 21, 2025).*

There was reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop based on the totality of the circumstances, including one appearing under the influence of drugs and their nervousness and failure to make eye contact and their prior drug offense histories. State v. Rose, 2025-Ohio-143 (4th Dist. Jan. 9, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Admissibility of evidence, Cell phones, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.