Defendant\u2019s motion for return of seized cash comes after administrative forfeiture became final. Denied. United States v. Mims, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27957 (N.D. Iowa Feb. 11, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant didn\u2019t seek resolution of his motion to suppress, so the trial court never got to rule. Waived for appeal. People v. Jones, 2026 NY Slip Op 00664 (4th Dept. Feb. 11, 2026).* (Sentence was seven years ago, January 2019.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cApproaching the inquiry practically, as we are required to do, these circumstances create \u2018a fair probability that evidence of a crime\u2019 would be found in the residence. \u2026 Evans\u2014a person with a known drug trafficking history\u2014entered Cody’s home to get away from police and came out shortly thereafter covered in a white powder Kay recognized as drugs. As Cody concedes, Evans likely tampered with evidence inside the home, which is a felony. Officers therefore reasonably believed that evidence of Evans’s criminal activity was located in the residence.\u201d State v. Cody, 2026 Ohio App. LEXIS 521 (1st Dist. Feb. 11, 2026).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s motion for return of seized cash comes after administrative forfeiture became final. Denied. United States v. Mims, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27957 (N.D. Iowa Feb. 11, 2026).* Defendant didn\u2019t seek resolution of his motion to suppress, so the trial … Continue reading