{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","provider_name":"Transistor","provider_url":"https://transistor.fm","author_name":"Unreasonable Expectations: A 4th Amendment Podcast","title":"Unreasonable Expectations: Week Ending: July 27, 2026","html":"","width":"100%","height":180,"duration":2275,"description":"This week's federal circuit decisions redrawing the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment (and the constitutional issues around it) for criminal defense practitioners. Seven decisions, in order:Jones v. City of St. Louis (8th Cir., 7/27/26): Section 1983 excessive-force claims by four pretrial detainees, and the court's case-by-case qualified-immunity analysis.Horocofsky v. City of Lawrence (10th Cir., 7/24/26): Denial of leave to amend affirmed on Rule 16 procedural grounds.United States v. Williams (6th Cir., 7/24/26): How an unconditional guilty plea waives your pretrial suppression motions. No Fourth Amendment ruling on the merits.Carrin v. Strong (11th Cir., 7/23/26): Whether Bivens still offers a damages remedy for federal prison medical care under the Eighth and Fifth Amendments.United States v. Pereda (9th Cir., 7/23/26): Probable cause to search a trailer and pickup tied to a supervisee under warrantless-search conditions, built on months of GPS residence data (Bumatay, J.; Paez, J., dissenting).United States v. Fordham (6th Cir., 7/22/26): A RICO prosecution of the Almighty Vice Lord Nation, with four separate suppression rulings including a Title III wiretap necessity challenge.United States v. Kendrick (7th Cir., 7/9/26): Warrantless pole-camera surveillance of a fenced commercial property is not a Fourth Amendment search. Denial of suppression affirmed.Hosted by Jay Ruane, Ruane Attorneys, Connecticut.","thumbnail_url":"https://img.transistorcdn.com/WbKmp4MdxdJLIkqoPdKaEvr3u8-XblFTrtSm8eXUUC4/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:400/h:400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS82M2Y3/OTY4YmVlOTA0NTQ2/YTdjYjU0M2UzOGM5/NjNmZi5qcGc.webp","thumbnail_width":300,"thumbnail_height":300}