The showing for the search warrant for defendant\u2019s car and cell phone was completely deficient. As to the car, its search is sustained under the automobile exception instead, but the phone extraction is suppressed. United States v. Carlton, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70596 (D. Alaska Feb. 18, 2025) (R&R).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Stop for failure to signal at a Y intersection was not an reasonable interpretation of an otherwise ambiguous statute. State v. Moore, 2025-Ohio-1326 (5th Dist. Apr. 15, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s indictment came five years after the search. His motion to dismiss for preindictment delay is denied for lack of a showing of prejudice. United States v. Naser, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70674 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 14, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff\u2019s car was repossessed by defendant. It\u2019s not a government actor for the Fourth Amendment. Pinkston v. Advanced Fin. Servs., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70374 (D. Del. Apr. 14, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The showing for the search warrant for defendant\u2019s car and cell phone was completely deficient. As to the car, its search is sustained under the automobile exception instead, but the phone extraction is suppressed. United States v. Carlton, 2025 U.S. … Continue reading