Plaintiff seeks an injunction contending that the seizure of tax resister literature violated the First and Fourth Amendment. The seizure was based on a warrant that it is evidence of a crime not yet prosecuted. The fact the Fourth Amendment might have been violated doesn\u2019t warrant returning the evidence because it\u2019s possible it\u2019s still admissible. Wellington v. Daza, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15115 (D. N.M. Jan. 31, 2019).<\/p>\n
Plaintiff doesn\u2019t state a claim against Sprint or those subpoenaing his cell phone call records. The subpoena was prima facie valid. Brown v. Sprint Corporate Sec. Specialist, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16641 (E.D. N.Y. Date: Jan. 31, 2019).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Plaintiff seeks an injunction contending that the seizure of tax resister literature violated the First and Fourth Amendment. The seizure was based on a warrant that it is evidence of a crime not yet prosecuted. The fact the Fourth Amendment … Continue reading