Defendant was subject to a state warrantless parole search waiver, so the existence of probable cause to support the warrant is moot. United States v. Strickland, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73938 (W.D. Ark. Apr. 23, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cCamara argues that the immigration judge and the Board erred in denying his motion to suppress certain evidence, including Rajic’s 2008 confession that her marriage to Camara was a sham. Generally, the exclusionary rule does not apply in immigration proceedings, although an exception exists for evidence obtained through an \u2018egregious\u2019 Fourth Amendment violation. \u2026 Here, there was no such violation.\u201d Camara v. Garland, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 9774 (9th Cir. Apr. 23, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Information from two CIs was independently corroborated by separate investigation. United States v. Hutchins, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73550 (E.D. Okla. Apr. 23, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant was subject to a state warrantless parole search waiver, so the existence of probable cause to support the warrant is moot. United States v. Strickland, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73938 (W.D. Ark. Apr. 23, 2024).* \u201cCamara argues that the … Continue reading