CA3: Nodding yes to a request to search was consent

Defendant’s nodding yes to a request to search was consent to search the car. The officers might have believed he didn’t have standing since he was a mere passenger at the time. He didn’t mention facts supporting standing until at the police barracks, so standing doesn’t matter. United States v. Terry, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 10832 (3d Cir. May 6, 2025).*

The ATF affiant wasn’t required to support his employment history when he states it. He’s under oath. There is no right of confrontation in an affidavit for search warrant. Defendant’s Franks claim fails for a complete lack of an offer of proof. United States v. Fortson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85880 (N.D. Ohio May 6, 2025).*

Plaintiffs’ complaint includes a Fourth Amendment claim that fails for lack of short plain statement required by FRCP 8 of the claim. Palisades Ests. Eom, LLC v. Cty. of Rockland, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85721 (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2025).*

Plaintiff’s malicious prosecution case was dismissed below. The Heck bar wasn’t discussed, and it’s remanded for further consideration of that. Clayton v. Johnson, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 10863 (4th Cir. May 6, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Burden of pleading, Consent, Franks doctrine, Issue preclusion, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.