CA4: PIT maneuver with unmarked car for detectives making a stop could be excessive force

Using an unmarked police car to stop plaintiff with a PIT maneuver requested by detectives without warning here raised sufficient factual disputes that the officers do not get summary judgment nor qualified immunity on an excessive force claim in his stop. Payne v. Moser, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 10488 (4th Cir. Apr. 13, 2026).

Defendant’s cell phone was sufficiently connected to his alleged offense for nexus, and probable cause was shown. United States v. Manuchekhri, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76624 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2026).*

“‘Generally, a dog sniff does not require separate reasonable suspicion because it is not a search under the Fourth Amendment.’ Stepp, 680 F.3d at 663 (citing Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 409, 125 S. Ct. 834, 160 L. Ed. 2d 842 (2005)). Even still, the Deputies had reasonable suspicion to pursue their narcotics investigation.” His actions were indicative of drug activity. United States v. Cunningham, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77609 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 9, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Dog sniff, Excessive force, Nexus, Seizure. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.