D.Minn.: While def was a passenger in a van, it was transporting his stuff, so he had standing

Defendant was a passenger in a van owned by a family member and transporting his stuff. He had standing to challenge the stop and detention. The stop was admittedly valid, and the extension of 15 minutes was based on reasonable suspicion. United States v. Maldonado-Benitez, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189946 (D. Minn. Aug. 21, 2024), adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189437 (D. Minn. Oct. 18, 2024).

Defendant didn’t submit to the officers’ show of authority, and he fled. That gave reasonable suspicion to detain him further. United States v. Lambert, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189628 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 18, 2024).*

“Thus, even if the Government conducted FISA surveillance of the Defendant, and even if the Defendant were able to convince the Court, after an adversarial proceeding, that evidence at trial would be obtained or derived from such information, the next step would be an in camera, ex parte review of the evidence by the Court under 50 U.S.C. § 1806(f)—in other words, a process substantially similar to the in camera, ex parte Conference that already happened in this case on July 23, 2024. And, on the basis of that Conference, the Court has already expressly held that ‘there is no basis on which to believe or suspect that the rights of Defendant have been violated in any way with respect to any government activities authorized by FISA.’ (ECF No. 143 at 3.) There is no reason to revisit that conclusion now.” United States v. Russell, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189535 (D. Md. Oct. 17, 2024).*

This entry was posted in FISA, Reasonable suspicion, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.