Defendant objects to the search warrant materials being unsealed on the docket. He has not overcome the common law presumption of open access. The First Amendment right of public access is even broader. These papers are unsealed. United States v. Harding, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72082 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 16, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff was a NY prison inmate subjected to a strip and\/or body cavity search, but the defense motion for partial summary judgment only creates a fact dispute. Denied. Rosa v. Hoke, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73326 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cPer Franks, the Government’s search warrant affidavit disclosed CC-1’s criminality from top to bottom. The affidavit disclosed that CC-1 possessed a firearm during a pre-buy search; that CC-1 later engaged Taylor in an unsanctioned drug transaction that led to a shootout in the Walmart parking lot\u2019 and that CC-1 had his own extensive criminal history. Indeed, the affidavit stated that CC-1 provided statements to law enforcement \u2018with the hope of receiving potential consideration on CC-1’s criminal charges.\u2019 \u2026 All of this information was disclosed to the magistrate for purposes of assessing reliability and probable cause, thereby obviating any grounds for a Franks motion.\u201d United States v. Taylor, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73403 (W.D. Va. Apr. 17, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant objects to the search warrant materials being unsealed on the docket. He has not overcome the common law presumption of open access. The First Amendment right of public access is even broader. These papers are unsealed. United States v. … Continue reading