M.D.Ala.: Officer’s adhering to particularity wasn’t a failure to uncover Brady information

“To the contrary, this testimony confirms only that Agent Evans’s forensic examination was circumscribed by the legal boundaries of the search warrant. Cox’s attempt to equate the examiner’s adherence to those boundaries with a failure to uncover exculpatory evidence is a logical non sequitur; the ex post argument—that the examiner’s failure to search for viruses or other files that would negate Cox’s intent constitutes forensic malpractice—is exactly the kind of ‘undeveloped assertion[]’ that the Eleventh Circuit has held insufficient to satisfy Moore. …” Cox v. Jones, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90829 (M.D. Ala. Apr. 24, 2026).*

Defendant’s stop was for an object hanging from the rearview mirror. When the officer got to the car, reasonable suspicion for marijuana use developed: a baggie on the floor and the look like the driver had recently consumed. United States v. Hallmon, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 11674 (8th Cir. Apr. 24, 2026).*

Defendant passenger had no standing to contest the search of the glove compartment of the car he was riding in. United States v. Cubias, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90807 (N.D. Okla. Apr. 23, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Due process, Particularity, Reasonable suspicion, Scope of search, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.