#Fourth Amendment

#Fourth Amendment

There are a number of articles ( Reuters, Politico) describing discussions about reindicting Jim Comey and Letitia James. Neither addresses the issue I lay out here - namely, that the ultimate goal of the Comey prosecution, at least, is to support the Grand Conspiracy in Florida, perhaps by obtaining at least probable cause that Comey lied to cover up the import of (Grand Conspiracy nutballs claim to believe) the "Clinton Plan" CIOL and Comey's decision to release a memo documenting Trump's corruption.

"We contend that the search of Carmen Bundy's phone," Khedr says, "was a clear violation of her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures." And so begins a day-long trial in New York City. Though in this case, the prosecutor is a high school senior from Staten Island. It's all part of an annual moot-court competition, and students from more than 30 city high schools have been researching and preparing their cases for weeks.

When Judge Cameron Currie surprised Pam Bondi's Counselor, Henry Whitaker, on Thursday with a question about whether DOJ believes Aileen Cannon wrongly dismissed Trump's stolen documents case, Whitaker claimed what distinguished Jack Smith from Lindsey Halligan is that Halligan is closely supervised. I do think that mostly what was driving Judge Cannon's decision in that case was sort of the unique and broad authority that the special counsel possessed sort of free of supervision, which, of course, is an element that we do not have here.

Even assuming the defendant could prove that the government violated the Fourth Amendment or attorney-client privilege in its grand jury presentation (and to be clear, he cannot), the remedy would be to suppress that evidence at trial-not to dismiss the indictment. So, the defendant has not shown that "a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury." Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(E)(ii). He is not entitled to access grand jury material.

In April 2024, current and former athletes from the University of Iowa, Iowa State and Ellsworth Community College filed the lawsuit, alleging that state criminal investigators violated their constitutional rights by using geolocation software, without warrants, to track activity on their cellphones from inside the schools' athletic facilities. The investigation resulted in some criminal charges but more so the loss of NCAA eligibility, which ended the college careers of several athletes.

Second Circuit judges were perplexed by a Manhattan landlord's request that the court declare unconstitutional a New York City law requiring landlords who participate in Section 8 housing to allow searches of their premises. The plaintiff-the owner of a 48-unit residential apartment building-is appealing the dismissal of his case asserting the law violates his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

In January, AB 379 will take effect, reinstating a repealed law that criminalizes "loitering with intent to purchase commercial sex." Governor Gavin Newsom, signed the bill, saying it will help protect victims of human trafficking. However, critics are its unclear language will enable law enforcement to detain individuals based on the subjective suspicion of having an "intent to purchase a commercial sex act."

In March 2021, a 25-year-old US citizen was traveling through Chicago's Midway airport when they were stopped by US border patrol agents. Though charged with no crime, the 25-year-old was subjected to a cheek swab to collect their DNA, which was sent to the FBI, according to a new report. The unnamed citizen was later admitted into the country. Their DNA was added to the FBI's database of genetic material despite the lack of criminal charges.

Traditionally, drunk driving cases have been about an officer arresting someone when they pull up and smell alcohol or see bloodshot eyes. But some judges are saying in addition to that, you need evidence that the person is driving erratically or unlawfully.

U.S. District Court Judge Jennifer L. Thurston emphasized, 'You just can't walk up to people with brown skin and say, Give me your papers.' This highlights the crucial legal boundaries surrounding immigration stops.