The search warrant for defendant\u2019s cell phone was issued with probable cause. The permissible scope of search included applications on the phone but having to go to the internet via the app. Moreover, the warrant for searching the phone included seizing it, and it was found during a patdown. United States v. Sandiford, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123692 (M.D. Fla. May 4, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A car can be a deadly weapon in the hands of the plaintiff in a use of force case. Jackson v. Gautreaux<\/a>, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 19703 (5th Cir. July 1, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe circumstances of Neevel’s blood draw do not raise constitutional issues under Birchfield. First, Neevel’s blood draw was not justified as a search incident to a lawful arrest but, rather, as consent to search under the implied consent statute. Therefore, Birchfield’s holding that blood draws may not be administered as a search incident to a lawful arrest does not apply to Neevel’s situation. Also, unlike the implied consent laws at issue in Birchfield, Wisconsin’s implied consent statute does not impose criminal penalties for refusing to comply with a blood draw. As a result, Birchfield does not, as Neevel argues, \u2018cast doubt\u2019 on the constitutionality of this law. Id. at 2185.\u201d State v. Neevel<\/a>, 2021 Wisc. App. LEXIS 327 (July 1, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The search warrant for defendant\u2019s cell phone was issued with probable cause. The permissible scope of search included applications on the phone but having to go to the internet via the app. Moreover, the warrant for searching the phone included … Continue reading