OR: Exigency here was speculative and rejected

The state’s claim of exigency from potential destruction of evidence was speculative, and the motion to suppress should have been granted. As to his burglary conviction, it’s harmless, but not as to two other counts. State v. Gilliland, 347 Or. App. 256 (Feb. 19, 2026).

A computer intrusion case, defendant beat around the bush: “Vance does not assert, but rather questions, whether the search warrant was unconstitutionally vague and he avers in general fashion that some of the items seized were outside the scope of the search warrant.” “Although Vance does not raise the issue of probable cause, there was clearly probably cause to conduct searches of his property.” The search was constitutionally adequate. United States v. Vance, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33459 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 19, 2026).*

The exclusionary rule generally does not apply in federal supervised release revocation proceedings. United States v. Kitt, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 4953 (4th Cir. Feb. 19, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Burden of pleading, Emergency / exigency, Probation / Parole search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.