Violation of CalECPA has nothing to do with federal rights. United States v. Wenger, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1331 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
At the time of the warrant, it was not established that the accused had to have knowledge of his status as a felon in possession. Therefore, plaintiff\u2019s claim would not succeed. Lemp v. Majkrzak, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1369 (D. Md. Jan. 6, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There was sufficient evidence that the take down of plaintiff was by excessive force because he wasn\u2019t resisting. Heredia v. Roscoe, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 193 (1st Cir. Jan. 6, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Nevada Supreme Court\u2019s resolution of petitioner\u2019s Fourth Amendment claim on habeas was a reasonable application of the Fourth Amendment and habeas relief is precluded. There were two valid warrants. Camacho v. Breitenbach, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1421 (D. Nev. Jan. 6, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Violation of CalECPA has nothing to do with federal rights. United States v. Wenger, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1331 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2025). At the time of the warrant, it was not established that the accused had to have … Continue reading