Officers did a controlled buy [used to be called \u201cbuy-bust\u201d] of drugs and then used the alleged noise from inside to justify a protective sweep. The protective sweep was valid. Defendant was in the doorway and Santana (1976) justified the entry as did a Second Circuit case from 1990 on almost identical facts. United States v. Cabrera, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226793 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s 2255 claim over his search is barred by law of the case. He\u2019d already litigated it and lost before conviction. Chavez v. United States, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225711 (D. Utah Dec. 18, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff alleges Fourth Amendment violations from interior inspections of rental properties. This as applied challenge fails for lack of what\u2019s actually happened during inspections. Barstow Proprietor Ass’n v. City of Barstow, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225947 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Officers did a controlled buy [used to be called \u201cbuy-bust\u201d] of drugs and then used the alleged noise from inside to justify a protective sweep. The protective sweep was valid. Defendant was in the doorway and Santana (1976) justified the … Continue reading