Even though this parolee was arrested and in custody, the vehicle he was in was still subject to search even though he was out of control of it at the time. His search incident on parole argument fails, too, as illogical. United States v. Smith, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176849 (E.D. Wis. Sep. 30, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2254 petitioner\u2019s claim the Fourth Amendment was violated underlying counsel\u2019s performance was unpreserved. Another part of the Fourth Amendment claim was relitigating what has already been lost. Adams v. Sec’y of the Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176602 (M.D. Fla. Sep. 30, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff fails to state sufficient facts to show that the EEOC violated the Fourth or Fifth Amendment. Cunningham v. United States Equal Opportunity Emp’t Comm’n, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176681 (D.D.C. Sep. 30, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is settled now that the smell of burnt cannabis was no longer probable cause in Illinois. People v. Eubanks, 2024 IL App (1st) 221229, 2024 Ill. App. LEXIS 2232 (Sept. 30, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Even though this parolee was arrested and in custody, the vehicle he was in was still subject to search even though he was out of control of it at the time. His search incident on parole argument fails, too, as … Continue reading