Defendant\u2019s nodding yes to a request to search was consent to search the car. The officers might have believed he didn\u2019t have standing since he was a mere passenger at the time. He didn\u2019t mention facts supporting standing until at the police barracks, so standing doesn\u2019t matter. United States v. Terry, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 10832 (3d Cir. May 6, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The ATF affiant wasn\u2019t required to support his employment history when he states it. He\u2019s under oath. There is no right of confrontation in an affidavit for search warrant. Defendant\u2019s Franks claim fails for a complete lack of an offer of proof. United States v. Fortson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85880 (N.D. Ohio May 6, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiffs\u2019 complaint includes a Fourth Amendment claim that fails for lack of short plain statement required by FRCP 8 of the claim. Palisades Ests. Eom, LLC v. Cty. of Rockland, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85721 (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff\u2019s malicious prosecution case was dismissed below. The Heck bar wasn\u2019t discussed, and it\u2019s remanded for further consideration of that. Clayton v. Johnson, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 10863 (4th Cir. May 6, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s nodding yes to a request to search was consent to search the car. The officers might have believed he didn\u2019t have standing since he was a mere passenger at the time. He didn\u2019t mention facts supporting standing until at … Continue reading