United States v Workman

The government appealed the district court order suppressing statements and child pornography evidence on the basis of an invalid warrant. The panel reversed and remanded. It held that the Leon good faith exception applied here even if the warrant that allowed the insertion of malware on a server in Virginia which would go to computers accessing a dark site on that server and return identifying information to another computer in Virginia was invalid for going beyond the geographic limits of the issuing magistrates jurisdiction as the United States Supreme Court has allowed the Leon exception to control even when the warrant relied upon had been withdrawn or otherwise did not exists and the FBI agents here acted in an objectively reasonably as the warrant was issued in Virginia by a magistrate in Virginia and the identifying information abut those who accessed the dark site was routed to Virginia and there was no law that would put the agents on notice their conduct was illegal and finally noted eight federal judges in five districts have upheld the warrant here when challenged.United States v Yepa

Yepa appealed the denial of his motion to suppress statements made during the execution of a warrant. The panel affirmed holding the search was not custodial interrogation, his incriminating statements about being bloody, being alone with the victim and moving with her in a manner consistent with blood trail evidence were spontaneously made and the questions from the officers present were efforts to clarify the statement made not interrogate Yepa.

Parker Excavating, Inc. v Lafarge West, Inc., Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. and Guerra

Parker appealed summary judgment to defendants on its racial discrimination in contracting retaliation claims. The panel affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. It affirmed as to Martin and Guerra as Parker failed to contest their argument that they could not be responsible for third party acts of discrimination at the district court level and thus forfeited appellate review of that issue and failed to argue plain error on appeal. It reversed as to Lafarge holding a genuine issue of fact exists as to whether Guerra was acting on behalf of Lafarge or Martin when he signed the termination of Parker’s subcontract letter on Martin letterhead as an employee of Lafarge.