DC: Officers were a good ways away from def when he fled without any apparent reason

“We now hold that the officers had the requisite reasonable articulable suspicion to justify their seizure of D.W. when they grabbed his leg. We reach that conclusion largely because D.W. ran upon the mere sight of police officers approaching from a substantial distance, with little indication that they were intent on stopping, searching, or even questioning him in particular. D.W. had not been singled out in any way and, to that point, had little reason to think he could not simply go about his business.” D.W. v. United States, 2026 D.C. App. LEXIS 222 (July 2, 2026).

A storage company owner’s citizen call to police that defendant was a felon with a gun was reasonable suspicion for defendant’s detention. Then his words resulted in handcuffing. United States v. Westfield, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120520 (E.D. Okla. May 5, 2026),* adopted, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118669 (E.D. Okla. May 29, 2026).*

Defendant’s Franks challenge “misses the mark.” He challenges reference to a hand-to-hand transaction. The officer’s trial testimony referred to another time, not the one in the affidavit. United States v. Rosario, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 19242 (3d Cir. July 1, 2026).*

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

Comments are closed.