This is a Rule 41(g) action for return of property, a superyacht owned by a Russian oligarch seized allegedly in violation of Russian sanctions. The next day, a forfeiture action was filed in the S.D.N.Y., and that provided an adequate remedy at law and the 41(g) case is dismissed. Khudainatov v. United States, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203081 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The search warrant for defendant\u2019s saliva was for DNA testing, so defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for not challenging that. Johnson v. Secretary, Florida Dept. Corr., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30192 (11th Cir. Nov. 13, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Prison cell search: \u201cTherefore, insofar as Plaintiff claims that he was subject to unreasonable cell searches in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, such a claim is not cognizable under \u00a7 1983 and is subject to dismissal.\u201d Harrison v. Campbell, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203160 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
An arrest warrant grants limited authority to officers to enter to arrest, but not to conduct a search. State v. Tumblin, 2023-Ohio-4099 (5th Dist. Nov. 14, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
This is a Rule 41(g) action for return of property, a superyacht owned by a Russian oligarch seized allegedly in violation of Russian sanctions. The next day, a forfeiture action was filed in the S.D.N.Y., and that provided an adequate … Continue reading