\u201cBolden’s entire focus is on recordings between himself and an undercover federal agent who was outfitted with a covert recording device. The government is correct-Bolden’s argument is foreclosed by long-standing caselaw.\u201d As in 1971. United States v. Bolden, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225670 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 21, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant isn\u2019t entitled to the name of the tipster that led to the search warrant because he or she is not a material witness in the case. United States v. Brown, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225729 (D. Minn. Dec. 13, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff\u2019s complaint he was stopped, detained, searched, and harassed outside a state court house in Nebraska wasn\u2019t specific enough on the facts to state a claim for relief. Welch v. Wooster, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225747 (D. Neb. Dec. 13, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff\u2019s complaint fails to state facts for a Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claim. Merely citing them isn\u2019t enough. Jordan v. Dep’t of Corr., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225836 (D. Conn. Dec. 13, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cBolden’s entire focus is on recordings between himself and an undercover federal agent who was outfitted with a covert recording device. The government is correct-Bolden’s argument is foreclosed by long-standing caselaw.\u201d As in 1971. United States v. Bolden, 2024 U.S. … Continue reading