CA7: The question is only whether the officer reasonably believed def violated the law, not whether def did

“‘[T]he question … is whether [the officer] reasonably believed that he saw a traffic violation, not whether [the defendant] actually violated the [law].’ Cole, 21 F.4th at 428.” United States v. Yang, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 19125 (7th Cir. July 12, 2022).

Defendant’s “objections [to the R&R] are minimal. He ‘objects to the Magistrate [Judge]’s finding [that] there were other bases of probable cause to stop [the] vehicle’ and that ‘he lacked standing to challenge the search of his vehicle” because of any abandonment. Def.’s Objs. at 1-2. Rojas Duque cites no case law and makes no additional argument as to why Judge Larkins’ findings or conclusions are erroneous.” United States v. Duque, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122055 (N.D. Ga. July 11, 2022).

Whether a Canadian seizure of documents and ultimate search in the United States violated the Fourth Amendment doesn’t matter here because it would be harmless error. United States v. Kachkar, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 19124 (11th Cir. July 12, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Burden of pleading, Foreign searches, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.