D.Colo.: No REP CI won’t record you

Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy against a CI recording him, so defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging it. United States v. Andasola, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190985 (D. Colo. Oct. 24, 2023).*

The officer had reasonable suspicion to detain defendant for disorderly conduct. United States v. Tedlund, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191008 (D. Mont. Oct. 24, 2023).*

“In this case, Trooper Wells had probable cause to arrest Scott when Scott failed to produce a driver’s license, failed to provide proof of insurance, and provided a false name. … The fact that Trooper Wells told Scott he was being detained as opposed to arrested is irrelevant for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment analysis.” Established inventory procedures were followed. United States v. Scott, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191093 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 24, 2023).*

The dog sniff did not extend the stop. State v. Johnson, 2023 Iowa App. LEXIS 817 (Oct. 25, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Dog sniff, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.