\u201cPlaintiff complains of cell searches that are unscheduled or more frequent than she believes they should be. Such a claim does not state a constitutional violation. Even assuming that TDCJ policy dictates the frequency of searches, additional searches are not unconstitutional.\u201d They aren\u2019t shown to be harassing. Wilbert v. Abbott, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211143 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 27, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2254 petitioner\u2019s Fourth Amendment claim barred by Stone. His attempt to relitigate it is construed as a successor petition and barred. Johnson v. Patton, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 27900 (10th Cir. Oct. 24, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There was reasonable suspicion for this stop based on two traffic violations, then the smell of marijuana from the car was apparent. United States v. Jones, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210350 (D. Kan. Oct. 24, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff stated a Fourth Amendment claim for seizure and destruction of his property without warning even though it was in a public place. Day v. L.A. Dep’t of Sanitation, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211547 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cPlaintiff complains of cell searches that are unscheduled or more frequent than she believes they should be. Such a claim does not state a constitutional violation. Even assuming that TDCJ policy dictates the frequency of searches, additional searches are not … Continue reading