\u201cDefendant argues that the warrant is facially deficient because the affidavit lacked a signature, a panel of the Eleventh Circuit has considered and rejected this argument. See United States v. Gordon, 686 F. App’x 702, 704 (11th Cir. 2017) (holding that \u2018even if the issuing magistrate judge failed to administer an oath or affirmation, the evidence was admissible because the detective acted in good faith and objectively reasonable reliance on the warrant\u2019).\u201d United States v. Morris, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83096 (N.D. Ala. May 1, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The trial court erred in finding defendant had no standing to challenge this seizure of cash from his rental car. He was the only one in it, and the exclusionary rule still applies in forfeiture cases, if the stop and search were illegal. Remanded. State ex rel. Kansas Highway Patrol v. $381,620 in United States Currency, 2025 Kan. App. LEXIS 19 (May 2, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The car\u2019s smell of marijuana and the occupants denying a medical marijuana card was probable cause. United States v. Woods, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84301 (W.D. Pa. May 2, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
NCIC can\u2019t be sued for a Bivens claim. Vanness v. Glass, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84179 (S.D. Fla. May 1, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cDefendant argues that the warrant is facially deficient because the affidavit lacked a signature, a panel of the Eleventh Circuit has considered and rejected this argument. See United States v. Gordon, 686 F. App’x 702, 704 (11th Cir. 2017) (holding … Continue reading