There is no Fourth Amendment claim for seizure of legal papers when an inmate was moving within a prison. Smith v. Starr, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139361 (D. Minn. Aug. 5, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cFollowing the arrest, however, the agents lawfully knew both that Lazzaro had a phone and that the phone was in Lazzaro’s apartment. Under these circumstances, and given the obvious importance of the phone to the investigation (which is why the case agent asked Rielly to give him any phone that Lazzaro possessed at the time of his arrest), the Court is persuaded that the agents would have obtained a warrant to search Lazzaro’s apartment for the phone had Rielly known that such a warrant was necessary. As a result, any evidence obtained from the phone is admissible under the independent-discovery doctrine (or, alternatively, the inevitable-source doctrine).\u201d United States v. Lazzaro, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139362 (D. Minn. Aug. 5, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A state court\u2019s interpretation of state law is binding on a federal habeas court. CoA denied. Adkins v. Warden, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 21671 (6th Cir. Aug. 4, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
There is no Fourth Amendment claim for seizure of legal papers when an inmate was moving within a prison. Smith v. Starr, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139361 (D. Minn. Aug. 5, 2022). \u201cFollowing the arrest, however, the agents lawfully knew … Continue reading