The affidavit for warrant was supposed to incorporate by attaching other stuff. The officer swore to it, but the stuff wasn\u2019t there. The good faith exception is denied because it remained bare bones. United States v. Medina, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45414 (D.R.I. Mar. 12, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There was a substantial basis for concluding defendant possessed a concealed firearm while he was a fugitive. The question is not whether there actually was probable cause; instead it\u2019s whether there\u2019s a basis for concluding that there was. United States v. Smith, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45419 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 14, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cFeathers also alleges that he \u2018suffered from discriminatory and unlawful treatment in violation of the Takings, Due Process, and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.\u2019 Dkt. 1 \u00b6 11; see also id. (\u2018Plaintiff’s claim is governed by the Fourth, Fifth, and other possible Amendments to the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights which may be applicable\u2019). There are no facts to establish any plausible constitutional violation under this open-ended laundry list of constitutional provisions.\u201d Feathers v. United States SEC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45470 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The affidavit for warrant was supposed to incorporate by attaching other stuff. The officer swore to it, but the stuff wasn\u2019t there. The good faith exception is denied because it remained bare bones. United States v. Medina, 2024 U.S. Dist. … Continue reading