N.D.Ohio: Violating retail store’s “no firearms” prohibition was RS for stop

Defendant’s violating a “no firearms” prohibition at a retail establishment was reasonable suspicion for his stop for trespassing. United States v. Sinkfield, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54823 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 17, 2026).

To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the underlying Fourth Amendment claim must be meritorious, and this one is barred by law of the case. United States v. Munoz, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54819 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2026).*

There was reasonable suspicion for defendant’s stop and the bodycam video is not suppressed. United States v. Garcia, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 7649 (5th Cir. Mar. 16, 2026).*

Text messages and surveillance provided probable cause for this warrant. United States v. Jackson, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 7671 (6th Cir. Mar. 16, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Ineffective assistance, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.