OSHA sought an inspection warrant for a cannabis producer in New Jersey. It was based on a neutral inspection plan [no complaints] and was particular in scope and therefore reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Inspection Warrant, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46978 (D.N.J. Mar. 14, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cBecause Phillips did not make a contemporaneous objection to either the admission of the body-camera footage or the search warrant at trial, his argument on this issue is procedurally barred.\u201d It\u2019s not plain error, either. Phillips v. State, 2025 Miss. LEXIS 69 (Mar. 13, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cDaniels asserts on appeal that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress evidence. Because Daniels’ argument relies upon proof outside of the record, and because he waived his argument when he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered his guilty plea, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.\u201d State v. Daniels, 2025-Ohio-869 (6th Dist. Mar. 14, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
OSHA sought an inspection warrant for a cannabis producer in New Jersey. It was based on a neutral inspection plan [no complaints] and was particular in scope and therefore reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Inspection Warrant, 2025 … Continue reading