A search warrant is required for a buccal swab after a criminal case is proceeding. State v. Steeprock, 2024 Minn. App. LEXIS 345 (July 29, 2024); State v. Jones, 2024 Minn. App. LEXIS 412 (Aug. 29, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The search warrant for this cell phone was a month after seizure. Considering the totality of all the factors, the delay was not unreasonable. \u201c\u2018[1] the length of the delay, [2] the importance of the seized property to the defendant, [3] whether the defendant had a reduced property interest in the seized item, and [4] the strength of the state’s justification for the delay.\u2019\u201d The phone was also shipped from Miami to Vermont for the search. United States v. Khalladi, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162522 (D. Vt. Sep. 10, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There was objective evidence for defendant\u2019s stop crossing the fog line. \u201cThus, appellant’s unsupported assertion, that police may have had some ulterior motive, does not prevent the stop from being valid for Fourth Amendment purposes.\u201d The ulterior motive alleged was race. State v. Walker, 2024-Ohio-4469 (4th Dist. Sep. 2, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A search warrant is required for a buccal swab after a criminal case is proceeding. State v. Steeprock, 2024 Minn. App. LEXIS 345 (July 29, 2024); State v. Jones, 2024 Minn. App. LEXIS 412 (Aug. 29, 2024). The search warrant … Continue reading