A Cherokee Nation officer was cross-deputized to act for the \u201cCity of Tulsa, the State of Oklahoma, the United States, and the Cherokee Nation.\u201d \u201cSecond, the Supreme Court has found that reviewing courts should give \u2018great deference\u2019 to a magistrate’s decision to issue a warrant; \u2018affidavits are normally drafted by nonlawyers in the midst and haste of a criminal investigation\u2019; and courts should not invalidate warrants \u2018by interpreting affidavit[s] in a hypertechnical, rather than commonsense, manner.\u2019 Gates, 462 U.S. at 235-36 (internal quotations omitted and alterations in original). Thus, Officer Blackwell’s errors in the affidavit do not justify invalidating the Cherokee Nation district judge’s decision to issue a search warrant for a residence within the bounds of the Cherokee Nation.\u201d Moreover, everything was done in good faith. United States v. Hutton, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3036 (N.D.Okla. Jan. 6, 2022).* [What about just plain reasonableness under Virginia v. Moore?]<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff has no Fourth Amendment rights inside a prison. Moore v. Eldorado Corr. Facility, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3060 (D.Kan. Jan. 6, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A Cherokee Nation officer was cross-deputized to act for the \u201cCity of Tulsa, the State of Oklahoma, the United States, and the Cherokee Nation.\u201d \u201cSecond, the Supreme Court has found that reviewing courts should give \u2018great deference\u2019 to a magistrate’s … Continue reading