CA10 doesn’t have to decide whether furtive movement alone supports vehicle protective sweep

Furtive movements alone may or may not be enough to justify a protective sweep of a car, a question this circuit has never decided. Here, however, there was the additional fact of a “slow roll” to a stop which was a little long, but it could have been the occupants hiding a weapon. That was enough. (And the slow roll is part of the furtive movements, isn’t it?) United States v. Canada, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 20428 (10th Cir. Aug. 8, 2023).

Defendant’s “stop” was because he was parked on the roadway without lights and there were no street lights, so it was unsafe. Everything else was by consent and then probable cause developed. Lewis v. State, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 5874 (Tex. App. – Houston (1st Dist.) Aug. 8, 2023).*

“Here, even if some of the factual assertions in the warrant affidavit were stale, there were enough specific allegations about recent events to sustain a finding of probable cause.” United States v. Caldwell, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 20426 (6th Cir. Aug. 7, 2023).*

The shooting of a family pet was fact bound and couldn’t be decided on summary judgment as an unreasonable seizure. Kailin v. Vill. of Gurnee, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 20437 (7th Cir. Aug. 8, 2023).*