Plaintiff worked for Metro-North Railroad, and he sued claiming he was subject to searches of his person and stuff without justification. He stated a plausible claim under the Fourth Amendment under O’Connor v. Ortega. Foli v. Metro-N. R.R., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63986 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant contends defense counsel was ineffective for not challenge his consent to search his phone. Now, however, \u201cthe only documentation before the Court reflects that the government conducted the search with Defendant’s consent. And there is no question that the consent exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement extends to government searches of cell phones.\u201d United States v. Levin, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64117 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWright challenges the stop of his vehicle. \u2026 He does not challenge the search warrant that authorized the search of the Honda. This case involves a combination of police officer and victim observations of a suspect vehicle that became more specific over the course of a few hours. Officer Haas had reasonable suspicion to stop Wright’s Honda. Thus, the stop was lawful, and all the evidence seized following the stop is admissible at trial.\u201d United States v. Wright, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64029 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 25, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Plaintiff worked for Metro-North Railroad, and he sued claiming he was subject to searches of his person and stuff without justification. He stated a plausible claim under the Fourth Amendment under O’Connor v. Ortega. Foli v. Metro-N. R.R., 2025 U.S. … Continue reading