No reasonable expectation of privacy [standing] in a stolen car. United States v. Burkhalter, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120556 (W.D. Mo. July 13, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On a probation search, \u201cApplying these principles, the Court finds that Brooks has failed to meet his burden to show the evidence at issue was seized through harassment. As an initial matter, the Court rejects Brooks’s argument that Dep. Consentino’s asserted basis for initiating the traffic stop\u2014\u2018a cracked windshield\u2019\u2014necessarily constitutes harassment.\u201d Harassment suggests a pattern. United States v. Brooks, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120317 (W.D. Tex. July 13, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The state constitutional law of consent is fixed by the state supreme court, and this court can\u2019t change it. State v. Bankson, 2023 Iowa App. LEXIS 548 (July 13, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201c[T]he Fourth Amendment protects liberty interests only until trial, and the Fourteenth Amendment protects against unlawful seizures \u2018through and after trial.\u2019\u201d Mervilus v. Union Cnty., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 17760 (3d Cir. July 13, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
No reasonable expectation of privacy [standing] in a stolen car. United States v. Burkhalter, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120556 (W.D. Mo. July 13, 2023). On a probation search, \u201cApplying these principles, the Court finds that Brooks has failed to meet … Continue reading