CA7: A temporary “want” not based on PC or a judicial determination wasn’t a basis for entry

The city here uses a “temporary” want, not based on probable cause, to enter plaintiff’s home. Plaintiff stated a claim for failure to train that a warrant is required, not something based on the officer’s action. Milbeck v. George, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 9090 (7th Cir. Mar. 30, 2026).

Radar confirmed defendant was speeding, and lack of video evidence doesn’t warrant suppression. United States v. Perez-Mejia, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65927 (D. Minn. Feb. 9, 2026).*

CoA denied. One issue is a Franks claim, but the petition wasn’t timely. Castle v. United States, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 9028 (6th Cir. Mar. 27, 2026).*

2255 petitioner’s claim his cell phone was searched without a warrant fails. The first mention of that was in the government’s brief on direct appeal saying the phone was searched with a warrant. Reynoso v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66211 (D.N.M. Mar. 26, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.