The exclusionary rule doesn\u2019t apply in civil cases in Alaska. Alaska R.E. 412. O’Brien v. Delaplain, 2024 Alas. LEXIS 99 n.35(Sep. 27, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The officer\u2019s observations on a table near the door from outside the dwelling during a knock-and-talk provided probable cause. Bitter v. Commonwealth, 2024 Ky. LEXIS 291 (Sep. 26, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
LPN check that showed owner\u2019s DL suspended justified stop. State v. Tomlin, 2024-Ohio-4710 (2d Dist. Sep. 27, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cDeputy Gallardo’s warrantless entry was objectively reasonable because it was prompted by credible information that Steve both \u2018was a suicide risk and had the means to act on it.\u2019 Clark v. Thompson, 850 F. App’x 203, 211 (5th Cir. 2021) (emphasis added); Rice, 770 F.3d at 1132. Deputy Gallardo’s entry was clearly in line with Rice, exigent circumstances existed, and no constitutional violation occurred.\u201d Winder ex rel. J.W. v. Gallardo, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 24545 (5th Cir. Sep. 27, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The exclusionary rule doesn\u2019t apply in civil cases in Alaska. Alaska R.E. 412. O’Brien v. Delaplain, 2024 Alas. LEXIS 99 n.35(Sep. 27, 2024). The officer\u2019s observations on a table near the door from outside the dwelling during a knock-and-talk provided … Continue reading