A restated Fourth Amendment claim doesn\u2019t satisfy the standard for a successor 2254 petition. Hardy v. Neal, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 25343 (7th Cir. Sep. 25, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff fails in his claim the county routinely violates the Fourth Amendment in searches. Burley v. Sumner Cty. 18th Judicial Drug Task Force, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 25287 (6th Cir. Sep. 22, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The encounter with defendants outside a liquor store near a university was to see if they were of age when they bought liquor. \u201cHere, the agents identified observable facts that, viewed through their experience and training, provided the basis for reasonable suspicion to approach Escobedo and Robinette and request identification. The agents noted a \u2018youthful appearance,\u2019 but also considered the equally youthful-looking companions, the carry-out’s reputation for underage sales, and the fact it was a game day, with tailgating all around the campus.\u201d State v. Escobedo, 2023-Ohio-3410 (6th Dist. Sep. 22, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A restated Fourth Amendment claim doesn\u2019t satisfy the standard for a successor 2254 petition. Hardy v. Neal, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 25343 (7th Cir. Sep. 25, 2023). Plaintiff fails in his claim the county routinely violates the Fourth Amendment in … Continue reading