In the Brianna Taylor civil rights prosecution, the battering ram to the door of the apartment with shots being fired was a seizure of the occupants. United States v. Hankison, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29347 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 19, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant didn\u2019t get to see all the redacted warrant affidavit because it named the CI. On the whole it showed probable cause. People v. Etienne, 2025 NY Slip Op 00979 (2d Dept. Feb. 19, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant had standing to challenge a tracking order on a vehicle he\u2019d been driving, didn\u2019t own, and parked it and another drove off. Under Byrd, one doesn\u2019t have to own a vehicle to have standing. As to the tracking order, it was issued with probable cause. As to defendant\u2019s cell phone, it was seized with exigency and put into airplane mode. He conflates seizure and search of the phone needing a warrant. United States v. Hutchins, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28949 (W.D. Ky. Jan. 27, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Petitioner\u2019s Franks 2255 claim fails because it was already litigated. United States v. Aviles, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28912 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 19, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In the Brianna Taylor civil rights prosecution, the battering ram to the door of the apartment with shots being fired was a seizure of the occupants. United States v. Hankison, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29347 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 19, 2025).* … Continue reading