D.N.J.: Boxing in def’s car was a seizure

“Law enforcement’s conduct here—boxing in Deas’ Kia, ordering both Defendants out of the car, and placing them in handcuffs—falls within the scope of a seizure.” It was with reasonable suspicion. Then a dog alerted, then they got a warrant. United States v. Deas, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66223 (D.N.J. Apr. 7, 2025).

Michigan granted review of “the proper analysis for determining whether statements made while detained in violation of the Fourth Amendment under Riverside Co v McLaughlin, 500 US 44 (1991), should be suppressed.” People v. Sanders, 2025 Mich. LEXIS 592 (Apr. 4, 2025).*

Plaintiff’s illegal arrest claim calls into question his conviction and thus is barred by Heck. Armstrong v. Smith, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65642 (D. Nev. Apr. 3, 2025).*

One of the pieces of information in this affidavit for warrant involved information only later determined to have come from a jail call. The officer was not reckless or intentional not revealing that because it wasn’t known at the time. United States v. Keys, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65500 (E.D. La. Apr. 7, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Franks doctrine, Issue preclusion, Seizure. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.