The smell of marijuana on a student\u2019s person justified a school search, and here it was their backpack then pockets. Stanford v. Northmont City Sch. Dist., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 26336 (6th Cir. Oct. 2, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This \u00a7 1983 plaintiff lacked standing in a car rented for him by another because his DL was suspended. \u201cIndeed, during his deposition in this case, Brookins admitted that he was driving with a suspended license at the time of the stop and search, and does not dispute that fact on appeal. Brookins therefore lacks Fourth Amendment standing to challenge the search underlying his malicious prosecution claim.\u201d Brookins v. Laureano, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 26311 (2d Cir. Oct. 4, 2023).* [Not buying that.]<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The trial court erred in concluding there was no probable cause for search of defendant\u2019s cell phone. The state showed in the affidavit numerous ways of communication between defendant and his alleged victim that was the probable cause showing. Also, the warrant was sufficiently particular. State v. Black, 2023 Ga. App. LEXIS 458 (Oct. 4, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The smell of marijuana on a student\u2019s person justified a school search, and here it was their backpack then pockets. Stanford v. Northmont City Sch. Dist., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 26336 (6th Cir. Oct. 2, 2023). This \u00a7 1983 plaintiff … Continue reading