E.D.Mo.: Carpenter does not protect ISP information

Carpenter creates no protection for ISP subscriber information. No Due Process rights were violated though a § 1509 summons. United States v. Meyrand, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84060 (E.D. Mo. May 2, 2025).*

This court declined to abandon the automobile exception in favor of electronic warrants seven years ago, and things haven’t changed. State v. McClain, 2025 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 50 (May 2, 2025).*

Defendant’s Rule 41(g) motion for return of property is denied because there’s a pending criminal case involving it. United States v. Xian Long Ruan, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84013 (W.D. Okla. May 2, 2025).*

Defendant’s post-conviction particularity claim was essentially resolved on direct appeal, so no ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Hudson, 2025 Del. Super. LEXIS 219 (Apr. 30, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Automobile exception, Issue preclusion, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Surveillance technology, Third Party Doctrine. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.