\u201cDefendant Halima Salman is charged with receiving military type training from a foreign terrorist organization in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2339D.\u201d The government maintains a database of who is involved in military activities overseas: NMEC. Defendant\u2019s husband\u2019s cell phone was seized in Syria and the contents uploaded; pictures, social media posts, etc. There\u2019s no challenge to that seizure. Searching the database did not violate the Fourth Amendment. There was no standing in his phone, and there\u2019s no reasonable expectation of privacy in that database. United States v. Salman, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218278 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Officer\u2019s seeing a hand rolled cigarette during a traffic stop for window tint was reasonable suspicion. State v. Perry, 2025-Ohio-4945 (5th Dist. Oct. 28, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There is no doubt that there was probable cause for defendant\u2019s detention, handcuffing, and frisk. Farden v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213214 (D.N.M. Oct. 29, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
CoA on defendant\u2019s ineffective assistance of counsel claim of failing to properly litigate a Franks motion. The government supplemented the record below to clarify ambiguities. Ward v. United States, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 28591 (6th Cir. Oct. 31, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cDefendant Halima Salman is charged with receiving military type training from a foreign terrorist organization in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2339D.\u201d The government maintains a database of who is involved in military activities overseas: NMEC. Defendant\u2019s … Continue reading