Inserting a key in a lock to see if it worked wasn\u2019t a search. The key was in his jail property and lawfully taken from there. A warrant wasn\u2019t required to get into his property bag. United States v. Miller, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91369 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 24, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s stop was justified for a paper dealer tag, and that led to consent to search for firearms which led to probable cause to search for drugs. United States v. Jenkins, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63336 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 2, 2026),* adopted, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60469 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 23, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant claimed that the search warrant for pharmacy records in a pill mill case was based entirely on a prescription database, but it wasn\u2019t. There were 64 pages of other stuff showing probable cause. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. v. Chaney, 2026 Ky. App. LEXIS 40 (Apr. 24, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Texas\u2019s statutory exclusionary rule (Art. 38.21) doesn\u2019t apply in federal court. United States v. Etheredge, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91820 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 24, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Inserting a key in a lock to see if it worked wasn\u2019t a search. The key was in his jail property and lawfully taken from there. A warrant wasn\u2019t required to get into his property bag. United States v. Miller, … Continue reading