M.D.Pa.: Ordering driver out of car doesn’t extend it for Rodriguez purposes

Ordering the driver out of the car is incidental to the mission of the stop and doesn’t extend it for Rodriguez purpses. United States v. Brabham, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36681 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 1, 2024).

While the smell of alcohol on the person and erratic driving alone isn’t probable cause, defendant’s attempted flight added enough. Brown v. State, 2024 Md. App. LEXIS 154 (Mar. 1, 2024).*

There were two search warrants here. Information in the first application supported the second. The first was later suppressed. The officer did not act recklessly in including that information in the second warrant application. The second stands on its own and the suppressed part isn’t material. Also, the warrant wasn’t stale because this was an ongoing drug operation. United States v. Guenther, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34570 (D. Minn. Feb. 8, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion, Staleness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.