Calandra revisited [and I haven\u2019t seen it since Calandra]: Exclusionary rule doesn\u2019t apply before grand juries. United States v. Jones, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11132 (D. Nev. Jan. 21, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The search warrant was based on two controlled buys plus the CI\u2019s information. Even if the latter was erroneous, the former was sufficient. United States v. Haskins, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 1232 (7th Cir. Jan. 21, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant was walking behind closed businesses at 1:30 am with a shovel over his shoulder. When stopped by the officer he became belligerent and said he knew his Second Amendment rights. His frenzied actions where he was added up to reasonable suspicion. State v. McKenzie, 2025-Ohio-150 (5th Dist. Jan. 21, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s 2254 chain of custody argument conflates admissibility of evidence and the Fourth Amendment, and it\u2019s denied as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. United States v. Kramer, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9802 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 21, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Calandra revisited [and I haven\u2019t seen it since Calandra]: Exclusionary rule doesn\u2019t apply before grand juries. United States v. Jones, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11132 (D. Nev. Jan. 21, 2025). The search warrant was based on two controlled buys plus … Continue reading