Seizure of a cell phone in school for 30 minutes that was not searched at all was not unreasonable. McGuire v. Roseville Joint Union High Sch. Dist., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98392 (E.D. Cal. June 5, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The warrantless blood draw here was valid based on exigent circumstances. It would take about 4 hours to get a warrant and return with it. State v. Reynolds, 2023 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 193 (June 6, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendants were not prejudiced by delay in presentment because they were arrested on the high seas in the Carribean and it took a while to get to court. \u201cDefendants alternatively submit that the indictment should be dismissed under the outrageous conduct doctrine. They correctly observe that, in 1973, the Supreme Court said that we \u2018may some day be presented with a situation in which the conduct of law enforcement agents is so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial processes to obtain a conviction,\u2019 but this Court cannot agree that this is such a case. See United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 431-32 (1973). We cannot say that the record in this case, though economically wasteful and needlessly harsh towards the detainees being shuffled around the Caribbean, presents a due process violation. Accordingly, this aspect of the Motion is due to be DENIED on that basis.\u201d United States v. Henriquez, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98259 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 24, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Seizure of a cell phone in school for 30 minutes that was not searched at all was not unreasonable. McGuire v. Roseville Joint Union High Sch. Dist., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98392 (E.D. Cal. June 5, 2023).* The warrantless blood … Continue reading