D.Alaska: Motions in limine aren’t motions to suppress

Defendant filed a motion in limine in lieu of a motion to suppress which was otherwise out of time. A motion in limine isn’t a substitute for a motion to suppress. Nevertheless, the court goes to the merits of the search claim and finds for the government. The search was valid as an inventory. United States v. Romero, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55762 (D. Alaska Mar. 26, 2025).

Plaintiff cites three cases that he says show the officer used excessive force, but none of them is close enough on the facts to make it “clearly established law” for qualified immunity. Martinez v. Harris County, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 7023 (5th Cir. Mar. 26, 2025).*

Defendant’s claim in the briefs that the cell phone was hers isn’t supported by the evidence, so no standing. United States v. Lussier, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55795 (D. Minn. Mar. 26, 2025).*

Defendant’s traffic stop was valid because of a traffic offense and because collective knowledge showed he was suspected of possessing drugs. United States v. Solomon, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55777 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 26, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Collective knowledge, Motion to suppress, Qualified immunity, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.