\u201cInasmuch as Mr. Mitchem was unaware that his car was blocked given his somnambulant state, the mere blocking of his vehicle is of no Fourth Amendment consequence.\u201d United States v. Mitchem, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118388 (S.D. W.Va. June 25, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s cell phone is suppressed because of the government\u2019s stipulations. United States v. Graham, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118315 (S.D. Ga. June 24, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Dashcam video flatly contradicted the plaintiff\u2019s version of events, so summary judgment granted against his claim. The use of spike strips was reasonable and based on probable cause. Steed v. Mo. State Highway Patrol<\/a>, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 18952 (8th Cir. June 25, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2254 petition relitigating his search fails. \u201cPetitioner does not argue that he was precluded from using the corrective procedures below; indeed, he could not make such an argument because he did, in fact, fully litigate his Fourth Amendment claim.\u201d Ormejuste v. Artus, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118323 (E.D. N.Y. June 23, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u201cInasmuch as Mr. Mitchem was unaware that his car was blocked given his somnambulant state, the mere blocking of his vehicle is of no Fourth Amendment consequence.\u201d United States v. Mitchem, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118388 (S.D. W.Va. June 25, … Continue reading