CA6: Reference to water emoji 💦with dual meaning not a Franks violation

“Swanagan did not make an adequate preliminary showing that Budde’s interpretation of the water emoji was intentionally or recklessly false, so the district court did not clearly err in finding the affidavit truthful. Swanagan asserts that he ‘provided dictionary support that a water emoji had a common meaning of sexual relations’ and that ‘the government acknowledged that the water emoji could have other meanings’ besides methamphetamine.” United States v. Reed, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 33561 (6th Cir. Dec. 23, 2025).

Defendant’s claim that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him was “borderline frivolous.” United States v. Edwards, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 33003 (7th Cir. Dec. 17, 2025).*

“The Government is correct in its position that Fowlkes was not ‘ordered’ to talk to the officers. Officer Grier’s on-camera statement—‘walking away as soon as we walk up, what’s going on?’—was a question, not a command. The officers credibly testified that they did not demand that Fowlkes turn around and speak with them. One brief question did not transform the encounter into a seizure because ‘mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure.’ Bostick …” United States v. Fowlkes, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 260888 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 17, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion, Seizure. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.