Prison search case: \u201cPlaintiff alleges that his clothes were ripped off during the assault, he was left naked on the floor with his boxers barely on, and the C.E.R.T. Defendants searched him \u2018without any [l]egitimate penological purpose for the strip search \u2026.\u2019 \u2026 These allegations, accompanied by the physical abuse and racial slurs Plaintiff allegedly endured during the C.E.R.T. Raid, are sufficient at this stage to plead that the search was not reasonably related to any legitimate penological interest. \u2026 Accordingly, Plaintiff has stated a plausible claim for unreasonable search against the C.E.R.T. Defendants in violation of the Fourth Amendment.\u201d Rodriguez v. Burnett, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62405 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant, fleeing from police, stashed his backpack in bushes. That was abandonment, even if he hoped to recover it after release from jail. United States v. Starr, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62112 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 4, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The question is whether the package was delivered before the warrant was served. \u201cMr. Calligan hasn’t [shown deficient performance] here. Conclusory assertions that the officers’ testimony about being aware a package was to be delivered to the home means they must have believed they were executing an anticipatory warrant isn’t enough. Nor would it change the calculus of probable cause. [\u00b6] Trial counsel’s performance regarding the motion to suppress was reasonable.\u201d Calligan v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62089 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 3, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Prison search case: \u201cPlaintiff alleges that his clothes were ripped off during the assault, he was left naked on the floor with his boxers barely on, and the C.E.R.T. Defendants searched him \u2018without any [l]egitimate penological purpose for the strip … Continue reading