VA: Exclusionary rule does not apply in animal cruelty forfeitures

The exclusionary rule does not apply in animal cruelty forfeitures, distinguishing One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania. Mogensen v. Cty. of Rockbridge, 2026 Va. App. LEXIS 46 (Jan. 27, 2026).

Defendant’s stop for a broken taillight lacked reasonable suspicion because there was at least some red light showing, and that satisfies Colorado law. United States v. Forrest, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14154 (D. Colo. Jan. 20, 2026).*

There was no reasonable expectation of privacy under the Florida wiretapping statute in a recorded business zoom call over FDA regulatory matters of the business. Aguila v. RQM+ LLC, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14013 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 26, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.