\u201cWe conclude that the inevitable discovery exception to exclusion applies, and therefore we need not address whether NCMEC violated the Fourth Amendment by opening Tolbert’s emails and attachments or whether the good faith exception to exclusion would apply. The evidence before the district court established by a preponderance of the evidence that the investigation into the CyberTips would inevitably have proceeded in the same manner even if the emails and attachments had not been opened by NCMEC.\u201d United States v. Tolbert, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 3823 (10th Cir. Feb. 20, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Habeas petitioner\u2019s lawyer wasn\u2019t ineffective for not challenging the police seizure of his clothing when he fled from the house he was staying in, never to return. Randolph v. MacCauley, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26690 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 15, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The affidavit for a search warrant never came up in court, and it revealed a possible threat to the District Judge. Nobody bothered to tell the judge until it came up much later, and then the defense moves to recuse. United States v. Martinez, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 3665 (10th Cir. Feb. 16, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cWe conclude that the inevitable discovery exception to exclusion applies, and therefore we need not address whether NCMEC violated the Fourth Amendment by opening Tolbert’s emails and attachments or whether the good faith exception to exclusion would apply. The evidence … Continue reading