Netflix contracted with defendant to make a series. When it fell through after paying him $44M, they believed they\u2019d been defrauded. The search warrant for what had been completed of the series was potential evidence and properly sought under the warrant. United States v. Rinsch, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208335 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The government satisfied inevitable discovery here. By the time of the protective sweep they had probable cause and were going to get a warrant. United States v. Gober, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208607 (N.D.W. Va. Oct. 23, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The affidavit for search warrant here failed to show probable cause under established case law, and the motion to suppress was properly granted. [The good faith exception is not discussed.]
State v. Nagle, 2025 Minn. LEXIS 579 (Oct. 22, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant was stopped as a suspect in a kidnapping, and his phones were validly seized. The government showed probable cause as to one phone but not the other, and even the good faith exception doesn\u2019t save it. One phone not suppressed, one is. United States v. Chowdhury, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208381 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Netflix contracted with defendant to make a series. When it fell through after paying him $44M, they believed they\u2019d been defrauded. The search warrant for what had been completed of the series was potential evidence and properly sought under the … Continue reading