The warrant was particular when it showed a picture of the premises with the address. The photograph showed the detached garage on the curtilage. That was covered by the warrant, too. When the government raised standing in response to defendant\u2019s motion to suppress, he at least addressed it in his reply brief asserting that he\u2019d been there for the previous year as a guest. That was enough. United States v. Harrison, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122822 (N.D. Ohio July 17, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant sought to enforce a non-prosecution agreement after a small quantity of drugs was found in a search. It was not by a motion to suppress. Defendant stated enough to get a hearing. Not a Fourth Amendment case. United States v. Bailey, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 18073 (4th Cir. July 17, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff executor stated a claim for excessive force. Remanded. M.A.R. v. City of Los Angeles, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 18078 (9th Cir. July 17, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cBut an officer’s request for a warrant is inherently an assertion that probable cause exists. Mr. Clark has not identified any basis\u2014and the Court is not aware of one\u2014for finding that an officer violates the Fourth Amendment by including the phrase \u2018probable cause\u2019 in his affidavit. His attorneys were not deficient because they did not cite this as grounds for invalidating the warrant.\u201d Clark v. United States, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122228 (S.D. Ind. July 17, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The warrant was particular when it showed a picture of the premises with the address. The photograph showed the detached garage on the curtilage. That was covered by the warrant, too. When the government raised standing in response to defendant\u2019s … Continue reading