\u201cThe warrant in this case has a catch-all phrase as to the types of evidence to be searched but is affirmatively limited to evidence of drug trafficking, manufacture, delivery, and possession. The warrant therefore satisfies the requirement described in cases such as Riccardi that \u2018warrants for computer searches must affirmatively limit the search to evidence of specific federal crimes or specific types of material.\u2019\u201d United States v. Barnes, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132599 (D. Wyo. June 24, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On the whole, there was a substantial basis for issuance of this search warrant. \u201cFurther, it was objectively reasonable for the officers to rely on the probable cause opinion made by an assistant prosecuting attorney who reviewed the warrant and the probable cause determination made by the judge who issued the warrant.\u201d United States v. Mangol, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131769 (W.D. Mo. May 23, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There was collective knowledge supporting defendant\u2019s arrest. United States v. Badillo-Hern\u00e1ndez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132593 (D.P.R. July 10, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Fleeing a wrecked car and leaving cell phones behind is abandonment. Defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for not challenging it. State v. Sawyer, 319 Neb. 435 (July 11, 2025).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cThe warrant in this case has a catch-all phrase as to the types of evidence to be searched but is affirmatively limited to evidence of drug trafficking, manufacture, delivery, and possession. The warrant therefore satisfies the requirement described in cases … Continue reading