In a case from 2005 received today, a cellphone was properly seized incident to an arrest. United States v. Allen, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45327 (S.D. Ohio March 15, 2005).*<\/p>\n
The defendant’s statement being voluntary, the search as a result was not invalid. She also consented to a search that produced the credit card identity theft equipment. United States v. Kabiarets, 496 F. Supp. 2d 394 (D. Del. 2007).*<\/p>\n
Rooker-Feldman<\/em> abstention barred federal court from determining what amounted to an appeal from a state juvenile proceeding and its Fourth Amendment claim. Kovacic v. Cuyahoga County Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50046 (N.D. Ohio July 9, 2007).*<\/p>\n Shipping company became suspicious of an incoming container that the recipient repeatedly came to ask about, and there have been previous seizures of containers there. They called the police when the container arrived, and a drug dog alerted on it. A warrant was obtained after he was detained. The container was packed with marijuana. United States v. Barraza, 492 F. Supp. 2d 816 (S.D. Ohio 2005).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading