C.D.Cal. denies stay in immigration stops without RS

Perdomo v. Noem, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137993 (C.D. Cal. July 17, 2025), posted here, holds that reasonable suspicion is required for immigration stops and race alone isn’t enough. The government’s motion for stay pending appeal is denied.

Without more testimony about the intersection, the court finds the officer’s testimony about a rolling stop violating the law was conclusory and rejected. Plus, lack of testimony that the dog was reliable makes its sniff unreliable. People v. Jie Lin, 2025 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 6080 (Richmond Co. July 3, 2025).* [This is an outlier and won’t be in the book.]

Defendant litigated his search claim in the trial court and lost. He can’t say he proceeded to trial in violation of the Fourth Amendment. [That’s a new claim I’ve never heard before.] Singleton v. Dir., Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just.-Corr. Insts. Div., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134608 (E.D. Tex. June 11, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Dog sniff, Immigration arrests, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.