Today’s will appear in parts because I’m in court early.<\/p>\n
During a home visit, parole officer saw the handle of a machete sticking out from under defendant’s mattress. That justified a further search that revealed a firearm. The search was valid under Samson<\/em>, likely even without that added justification. United States v. Massey, 461 F.3d 177 (2d Cir. August 22, 2006).*<\/p>\n Pro se target of search warrant sought return of property under Rule 41(g) on two grounds, failure to show PC and seizure of evidence beyond the scope of the warrant. The affidavit did show PC and the evidence seized was within the warrant. There is no requirement that the warrant specify the crime under investigation. In re 22 Blackwatch Trail Apt. No. 8, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59151 (W.D. N.Y. August 22, 2006).<\/p>\n City code enforcement officer entered on plaintiff’s driveway to take pictures for a city court case. Plaintiff had no REP in the driveway area. Boren v. City of Nampa, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58955 (D. Idaho August 18, 2006).<\/p>\n Hospital physician was not acting under color of law when he conducted a rectal exam of the plaintiff looking for hidden drugs. The police believed that plaintiff had swallowed baggies of cocaine, but an x-ray was negative. Plaintiff was brought in because of fear of an overdose. Williams v. Brann, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58578 (E.D. Wisc. August 18, 2006).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evGMco.b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading