Defendant lost a motion to suppress but won a speedy trial dismissal without prejudice. Reindicted, he filed another motion to suppress, but law of the case applies. United States v. Bell, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41924 (W.D. Mo. Mar. 7, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cAttenuation is determined, in turn, using the Brown factors: \u2018(1) the temporal proximity of the illegal entry and the consent, (2) the presence of intervening circumstances, and, particularly, (3) the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.\u2019 United States v. Robeles-Ortega, \u2026 (citing Brown v. Illinois, \u2026 (cleaned up). [\u00b6] The Court isn’t so sure that Brown applies, but in the interest of efficiency, it takes Hurd at his word. Even assuming the officers’ conduct violates the Fourth Amendment, the taint of those violations quickly dissipated throughout the episode.\u201d United States v. Hurd, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41516 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThroughout his various briefing, Nixon claims that the County violated his Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. We need not address his Fourth Amendment claim any further as he fails to include it in his Amended Complaint.\u201d Nixon v. Dall. Cty., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5389 (5th Cir. Mar. 7, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff didn\u2019t adequately plead his Fourth Amendment claim of seizure. Djonovic v. Septer, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5380 (6th Cir. Mar. 6, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant lost a motion to suppress but won a speedy trial dismissal without prejudice. Reindicted, he filed another motion to suppress, but law of the case applies. United States v. Bell, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41924 (W.D. Mo. Mar. 7, … Continue reading