Nexus to defendant\u2019s house was shown by two controlled buys with others who traveled back to his house afterward. United States v. Espinoza, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 5147 (9th Cir. Mar. 4, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe warrant for appellant’s medical records was sufficiently particular because it authorized a search for appellant’s medical and ambulance records and was limited to the date of the accident and to the hospital at which appellant was treated. Because the warrant restricted the contents, time, and location of the records sought, we conclude that the district court did not err by refusing to suppress the medical records obtained through the warrant.\u201d Also, the doctor-patient privilege doesn\u2019t apply to paramedics. State v. Smeby, 2024 Minn. App. LEXIS 105 (Mar. 4, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Police had reasonable suspicion for the stop of defendant\u2019s Jeep. Police had an automatic weapon shots fired call, and they drove to the scene seeing a Jeep with a shot-out back window. The officer made a U turn and the Jeep fled. That was enough. United States v. Hart, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35781 (D. Minn. Mar. 1, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Nexus to defendant\u2019s house was shown by two controlled buys with others who traveled back to his house afterward. United States v. Espinoza, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 5147 (9th Cir. Mar. 4, 2024). \u201cThe warrant for appellant’s medical records was … Continue reading