Defendant didn\u2019t fairly articulate his objections to the R&R, so his objection is waived. United States v. Hill, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83707 (N.D.Ga. May 9, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There was probable cause for this search authorization, and the good faith exception applies in any event. United States v. Collins<\/a>, 2022 CCA LEXIS 263 (A.F.Ct.Crim.App. May 6, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n The information here wasn\u2019t stale on the totality. Recent events \u201crefreshed\u201d what the police previously knew. People v. Delgado<\/a>, 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 392 (2d Dist. May 6, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n This probation search was based on reasonable suspicion. United States v. Roberts, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82285 (D.Del. May 6, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n The exclusionary rule does not apply in civil cases, here a statement suppressed in a criminal case. Cantrell v. Cantrell<\/a>, 2022 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 45 (May 6, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The government\u2019s motion to seal the warrant papers is granted. Lesser restrictive measures won\u2019t work here. In re United States, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82706 (D.S.C. Apr. 25, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n Defendant lacks standing in a vehicle he was just a passenger in, and Byrd doesn\u2019t help him. United States v. Vargas, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82859 (M.D.Pa. May 6, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n Defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for not raising a Fourth Amendment claim. Defendant can\u2019t show prejudice for alleged lack of probable cause. There was probable cause. United States v. Li, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82866 (M.D.Pa. May 6, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWe conclude that Officer Vasquez did not violate Bustillos’s Fourth Amendment rights because Officer Vasquez had reasonable suspicion and probable cause to handcuff Bustillos. Bustillos’s challenge focuses on his right to record the officers’ encounter with the woman that day, but his argument misses the mark. The issue was not that Bustillos was recording the encounter-it was that he refused to comply with the officers’ lawful commands to leave the scene and provide his identification. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Bustillos, Officer Vasquez was in the lawful discharge of his duties when he and the other officers responded to calls regarding the woman with an “altered mental status” running in and out of traffic.\u201d Bustillos v. City of Carlsbad<\/a>, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 12407 (10th Cir. May 9, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n The report from a concerned citizen here sufficed to show probable cause. When the police arrived at the house to search, the addition of the claim that they could smell marijuana, too, doesn\u2019t add anything because one can\u2019t tell it was coming from the house. United States v. Thomas, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83073 (D.Minn. Mar. 11, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n Defendant challenges the inclusion of information from a CI, but striking it still leaves probable cause, so it doesn\u2019t matter. He also doesn\u2019t make a proper Franks challenge. United States v. Phillips, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83277 (E.D.Ky. May 9, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n This habeas applicant does not get a CoA for appeal. His habeas search claim is barred by Stone. Washington v. Superintendent Somerset SCI, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 12460 (3d Cir. Mar. 28, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant didn\u2019t fairly articulate his objections to the R&R, so his objection is waived. United States v. Hill, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83707 (N.D.Ga. May 9, 2022). There was probable cause for this search authorization, and the good faith exception … Continue reading