CA9: 4A does not require the recording of telephonic oaths

The Fourth Amendment does not require the recording of telephonic oaths. United States v. Larkins, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 3513 (9th Cir. Feb. 14, 2025).

The officer’s conduct was not reckless or deliberate to avoid the good faith exception. United States v. Milton, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27265 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 14, 2025).*

“Regarding the alleged failure to investigate and challenge evidentiary claims, Mr. Monsen asserts that the government violated his Fourth Amendment rights, his counsel should therefore have filed a motion to suppress, that such motion would have been successful, and the government would then have no basis to bring charges to which Mr. Monsen could plead guilty. However, Mr. Monsen fails to provide sufficient details as to the alleged Fourth Amendment violation to allow the Court to assess the legitimacy of this claim. Without such details, Mr. Monsen has failed to clearly demonstrate that but for his counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty.” United States v. Monsen, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27454 (D. Utah Feb. 14, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Good faith exception, Ineffective assistance, Warrant papers. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.