The search warrant was ostensibly for a particular Motel 6 and room number, but the warrant completely omitted reference to the place to be searched. United States v. Brown, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47675 (D. Minn. Mar. 13, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When witnesses to a shooting said that an SUV contained either suspects in the shooting or witnesses to it, there was reasonable suspicion to stop it. As for search of a cell phone, the warrant authorized search and seizure of \u201cany and all\u201d information and things on it, and defendant argued it was a general warrant. However, Officer \u201cEbert testified that he simply used standard department language that had been approved on many previous occasions.\u201d The good faith exception applied. \u201cWe need not consider, and take no position on whether the district court correctly concluded that the cell phone warrant \u2018was insufficiently particular and unconstitutionally overbroad.\u2019\u201d United States v. Williams<\/a>, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6230 (8th Cir. Mar. 18, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The critical six seconds of video of this shooting supports the officer\u2019s version and not plaintiff\u2019s so qualified immunity applies. Denk v. Miller, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6180 (9th Cir. Mar. 17, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n There was probable cause for the warrant for defendant\u2019s BAC. People v. Coble, 2025 Mich. App. LEXIS 2061 (Mar. 17, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The search warrant was ostensibly for a particular Motel 6 and room number, but the warrant completely omitted reference to the place to be searched. United States v. Brown, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47675 (D. Minn. Mar. 13, 2025). When … Continue reading