\u201cSmall abandoned his legitimate expectation of privacy in the backpack. Although Small arguably demonstrated a subjective expectation of privacy by attempting to hide the backpack under his seat (though this act could also be viewed as an effort to physically abandon the backpack in the closed car), any subjective expectation was rendered objectively unreasonable when he explicitly disclaimed ownership by stating \u2018this is not my backpack.\u2019\u201d United States v. Small, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 17117 (3d Cir. July 7, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The state met its burden of showing exigency in a blood draw from an unconscious DWI suspect in the hospital. State v. Burris, 2023 N.C. App. LEXIS 393 (July 5, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Cash found during an otherwise valid inventory was admissible. United States v. Carey, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 17122 (3d Cir. July 7, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiffs\u2019 admissions they were arrested for violating curfew in a BLM protest after the Floyd murder defeated their false arrest claims. Tinius v. Choi, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 17175 (D.C.Cir. July 7, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cSmall abandoned his legitimate expectation of privacy in the backpack. Although Small arguably demonstrated a subjective expectation of privacy by attempting to hide the backpack under his seat (though this act could also be viewed as an effort to physically … Continue reading