S.D.Fla.: Murder for hire scheme was exigency for entry; SW issued a day late not automatically stale

A murder for hire scheme was exigency for a warrantless search. Here, the officers thought the firearm would be moved imminently on December 31, 2024, but the warrant wasn’t signed until after midnight January 1, 2025. It wasn’t automatically stale, and there was exigency. United States v. Fultz, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225617 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2025).

Ordering defendant out of his car during a nighttime stop was not unreasonable nor unrelated to the purpose of the stop. United States v. Nicely, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226834 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 6, 2025).*

Defendant’s vehicle could have been searched on the side of the road. Instead, officers waited 18 hours to get a search warrant for it to search for drugs they saw in it. The delay was not unreasonable. United States v. Walker, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226275 (N.D. Iowa Nov. 18, 2025).*

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging the search warrant for what appears now [to this author] to be speculative reasons. MacVicar v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226254 (D. Me. Nov. 18, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Automobile exception, Emergency / exigency, Ineffective assistance, Reasonableness, Staleness, Warrant execution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.