D.S.D.: Traffic stop immediately moved into being a drug investigation without RS and was unreasonable

Defendant’s stop was for not having an LPN and a cracked windshield. There was a temporary permit for the vehicle and the crack wasn’t obstructing vision. Bringing in a drug dog for a sniff of car was unreasonable. The officer “and his comrades could have quickly, and easily, confirmed the validity of the permits if he or those assisting him wanted to. But they focused on something else — making a drug bust.” United States v. Hernandez, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195744 (D.S.D. Oct. 22, 2022) (R&R).

Aside from the traffic violation with furtive movements, “the Jeep was idling in an area with a surge of gun violence and narcotics activity.” United States v. Wiggins, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195688 (D.N.J. Oct. 27, 2022).*

Defendant has no standing to challenge the search of a codefendant’s cell phone. United States v. Major, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195699 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 26, 2022).*

The court of appeals lacked certiorari jurisdiction to decide whether forced production of a passcode to a smartphone violated the Fifth Amendment. Therefore, there is no appellate jurisdiction here. The question can be answered by a direct appeal. State v. Garcia, 2022 Fla. LEXIS 1624 (Oct. 27, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Dog sniff, Reasonable suspicion, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.