The state search warrant in this case was not served within three days as required by Ohio law. That did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and he shows no prejudice. United States v. Calhoun, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121202 (N.D. Ohio June 2, 2026). [Note: A delayed served search warrant can become stale by waiting; but not here.]<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s admissions in a mobile home that were recorded from another room through thin walls were \u201coral communications\u201d under Florida law and excluded. Judkins v. State, 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 4209 (Fla. 1st DCA June 3, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
An NOPD crime lab employee on leave was ordered to work for a drug test. He refused. He states a Fourth Amendment claim. Derhaar v. Watson, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 15876 (5th Cir. June 2, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s mere allegation of a false statement in support of the warrant here doesn\u2019t warrant a hearing. State v. Cherry, 2016 NH 22, 2026 N.H. LEXIS 94 (June 3, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The state search warrant in this case was not served within three days as required by Ohio law. That did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and he shows no prejudice. United States v. Calhoun, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121202 (N.D. … Continue reading