M.D.Fla.: Unidentified pills in driver’s lap may have been RS but it wasn’t PC for arrest

Defendant was stopped for speeding, and he was arrested for drugs based on unidentified pills found in his lap when the officer looked in. That might have been reasonable suspicion, but it wasn’t probable cause. Therefore, the arrest and car search are invalid and suppressed. United States v. Vogel, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186990 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 20, 2026).

Breaking plaintiff’s car window and pulling him out here was justified by his uncooperativeness and refusing to keep his hands visible. For 14 minutes he refused to show his DL or get out when directed. “Balancing the nature of the intrusion against the severity of the suspected offense, the potential threat to officer safety, and Plaintiff’s continued resistance, the Court finds that no reasonable juror could conclude that the force used in arresting Plaintiff was objectively unreasonable.” Basargin v. City of Homer, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187097 (D. Alaska Aug. 20, 2026).*

Search warrants run to the place, not the person in alleged control. Here, there were nine cell phones found. The affidavit didn’t infer they all belonged to one defendant, but since they were found there, that was enough to search them under the warrant. United States v. Davis, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187118 (D. Minn. Aug. 20, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Automobile exception, Cell phones, Excessive force, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion, Scope of search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.