Plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of privacy in talking to himself in his building elevator. Therefore, Title III didn\u2019t apply. He knew there was video recording but not audio. \u201cWhile in the elevator, Plaintiff writes that that is when he said to himself that he \u2018shot him in the face should’ve killed him.\u2019\u201d Rainey v. Ortyl, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203507 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff sued a law enforcement officer for following him into his house and Tasing him. The facts pled defeat qualified immunity because this violated clearly established law. Dukes v. Sheriff of Levy Cty., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 26953 (11th Cir. Oct. 16, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The search of defendant\u2019s motel room was valid by probation search waiver. United States v. Perry, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204239 (W.D. Va. Oct. 16, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cFor the reasons detailed below, the Court finds that Trooper Show did not have reasonable suspicion that Defendants had committed a traffic violation but did have reasonable suspicion that Defendants were engaged in drug trafficking, thereby allowing him lawfully to conduct the stop.\u201d United States v. Loya, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204086 (D. Or. Oct. 16, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of privacy in talking to himself in his building elevator. Therefore, Title III didn\u2019t apply. He knew there was video recording but not audio. \u201cWhile in the elevator, Plaintiff writes that that is when he … Continue reading