After defendant\u2019s motion to suppress was granted, he moved to reopen his detention hearing. It\u2019s denied. The government superseded the indictment, and he\u2019s still found to be a danger to the community. \u201cThe Court may thus properly consider suppressed evidence in the pretrial detention assessment. Therefore, all of the evidence previously considered at the May 19, 2023, detention hearing continues to inform the detention issue even though some of that evidence may fall within Judge Long’s suppression decision.\u201d United States v. Wilson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95575 (E.D. La. May 20, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe court agrees that the inventory search was constitutional, and that even if there were constitutional deficiencies, the gun would have been inevitably discovered.\u201d United States v. Nelson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95987 (E.D. Mich. May 20, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cA \u2018general proposition,\u2019 such as \u2018that an unreasonable search or seizure violates the Fourth Amendment is of little help in determining whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.\u2019 Rather, \u2018we must frame the constitutional question with specificity and granularity.\u2019 In other words, the \u2018dispositive question is \u201cwhether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.\u201d\u2019 We also note our \u2018commandment\u2019 that clearly established law comes from \u2018holdings, not dicta,\u2019 because public officials \u2018are charged with knowing the results of our cases \u2026 [but] are not charged with memorizing every jot and tittle we write to explain them.\u2019 [\u00b6] Respectfully, the district court erred by defining Wetherbe’s rights at too high of a level of generality.\u201d Wetherbe v. Tex. Tech. Univ. Sys., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 12248 (5th Cir. May 20, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
After defendant\u2019s motion to suppress was granted, he moved to reopen his detention hearing. It\u2019s denied. The government superseded the indictment, and he\u2019s still found to be a danger to the community. \u201cThe Court may thus properly consider suppressed evidence … Continue reading