The Secretary of Labor\u2019s administrative subpoena duces tecum here did not violate the Fourth Amendment. \u201cA warrant is required only when government officials enter onto a private party’s premises without consent and forcibly take possession of documents.\u201d Walsh v. Int’l Union, Local No. 18, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 250148 (C.D.Cal. Nov. 23, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The officer developed reasonable suspicion for further detention before he said \u201cgood to go.\u201d Once he had it, he didn\u2019t need additional reasonable suspicion after that to extend the stop. People v. Gamboa-Jimenez<\/a>, 2022COA10, 2022 Colo. App. LEXIS 72 (Jan. 13, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n A nine month delay to search a seized computer was not unreasonable. United States v. Baker, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6416 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Secretary of Labor\u2019s administrative subpoena duces tecum here did not violate the Fourth Amendment. \u201cA warrant is required only when government officials enter onto a private party’s premises without consent and forcibly take possession of documents.\u201d Walsh v. Int’l … Continue reading