It was not improper for the PO to turn defendant\u2019s phone over to the FBI to search it when it was already lawfully seized. \u201cThis is not a stalking horse case.\u201d The delay was not unreasonable. United States v. Fuller, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 237560 (D. Ariz. Dec. 30, 2024), adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7662 (D. Ariz. Jan. 14, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff\u2019s false arrest claim for domestic violence against police officers fails because there was probable cause. Shepard v. Does, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8884 (D.N.J. Jan. 16, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Petitioner\u2019s CoA request is almost summarily denied under Stone v. Powell. Diaz v. Lumpkin, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 1084 (5th Cir. Jan. 16, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment in defendant\u2019s arrest, and, even if they did, the specific act wasn\u2019t clearly established at the time. Cantu v. Austin Police Dep’t, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 1127 (5th Cir. Jan. 17, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
It was not improper for the PO to turn defendant\u2019s phone over to the FBI to search it when it was already lawfully seized. \u201cThis is not a stalking horse case.\u201d The delay was not unreasonable. United States v. Fuller, … Continue reading