On the totality, there was probable cause for cell phone search warrants. One can attempt to explain away the pieces, but the totality shows it. A dog sniff in the breezeway of an apartment complex violated no reasonable expectation of privacy. \u201c More importantly, it would be improper for this Court to apply the exclusionary rule given that the investigators never relied upon the results of that warrantless K9 sniff in any search warrant affidavit.\u201d United States v. Miller, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156497 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 30, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Petitioner\u2019s 2255 was barred by Stone and the fact he had no standing whatsoever by disavowing the contents of the place searched. United States v. Crawford, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155513 (D. Mont. Aug. 26, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
An anonymous call here justified at least defendant\u2019s brief detention for allegedly seeking to break into an apartment. Reliance on anonymous callers are not precluded under Terry. It was thus not an unreasonable seizure before probable cause finally developed. United States v. Astorga, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156088 (D.N.M. Aug. 29, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The record supported plaintiff\u2019s excessive force claim for actions occurring after a flashbang exploded with no qualified immunity. Robinson v. Sauls, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 24449 (11th Cir. Aug. 30, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
On the totality, there was probable cause for cell phone search warrants. One can attempt to explain away the pieces, but the totality shows it. A dog sniff in the breezeway of an apartment complex violated no reasonable expectation of … Continue reading