Plaintiff built a seawall on an inland lake without a permit. State environmental inspectors came to look and referred him for a violation of regulations. He sued in federal court for Fourth Amendment trespass. Despite it being clear the inspector entered the curtilage, the inspector gets qualified immunity, and the case is dismissed. No clearly established law. Thomson v. Peterson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156989 (E.D. Mich. July 15, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The trial court erred in suppressing defendant\u2019s stop. There was, in fact, reasonable suspicion for the stop. State v. Pittman, 351 Or. App. 474 (July 15, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe warrant to search Proctor’s cell phone was an unlawfully overbroad and unparticularized general warrant because the warrant failed to provide sufficient guidance to investigating officers and instead granted unfettered discretion to rummage through the voluminous data contained within her cell phone. However, the limited evidence from the cell phone admitted at trial was ultimately harmless error.\u201d State v. Proctor, 2026 MT 150 (July 14, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Plaintiff built a seawall on an inland lake without a permit. State environmental inspectors came to look and referred him for a violation of regulations. He sued in federal court for Fourth Amendment trespass. Despite it being clear the inspector … Continue reading