D.Utah: Police slow walked traffic stop without RS

“The court concludes the officers delayed the stop beyond what the traffic-based mission reasonably demanded, both 1) as a result of a mistakes and a lack of reasonable diligence, and 2) to investigate their suspicions about Said and Saul. These delays were not based on reasonable suspicion. Accordingly, the officers’ actions violated the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Angulo-Gaxiola, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85428 (D. Utah May 10, 2024).* Update: techdirt: Court To Cops: Sucking At Your Job And Slow-Walking A Stop Means You Lose All Your Evidence by Tim Cushing

In a civil case over seizure of a cell phone: “Here, the undisputed facts reflect that at the time Powell seized Grasso’s cellular phone, Powell had at least arguable probable cause—if not probable cause—to believe that a crime had been committed and that Grasso’s cellular phone had evidence of the crime.” Grasso v. Powell, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85243 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 29, 2024),* adopted 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84904 (N.D. Fla. May 10, 2024).*

In this SEC enforcement action, the U.S. Attorney’s Office also has the same documents obtained by search warrant, and defendant can get them there too. SEC v. Gallagher, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85235 (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2024).*

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

Comments are closed.