CA6: Change in protective sweep argument between district court and appeal was waiver

Defendant’s protective sweep argument changed from the district court to appeal, so the argument urged here is waived. Below he argued the protective sweep was unreasonably extended but here it’s whether it should have occurred at all. United States v. Riley, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 13289 (6th Cir. May 30, 2025).

Plaintiff’s complaint against her state prosecution is barred by Rooker-Feldman. Al-Ameen v. City of Valdosta, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102761 (M.D. Ga. May 30, 2025).

Police reports attached to a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss weren’t subject to judicial notice because they only referred to part of the incident and not all of it, and the opponent here didn’t have an opportunity to object. Hodges v. City of Grand Rapids, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 13215 (6th Cir. May 30, 2025).*

Three officers on bike patrol stopped at a park bench where defendant was talking to a 13 year old girl. He was seized without reasonable suspicion by the way they parked in front of him and interrogated him. State v. Hintze, 2025 Utah App. LEXIS 84 (May 30, 2025) (this is the third appeal of this case).*

This entry was posted in Issue preclusion, Protective sweep, Seizure, Waiver. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.