MI: Defendant’s revocation of his consent did not make the officers’ presence unlawful

Defendant’s revocation of his consent did not make the officers’ presence unlawful for purposes of his resisting arrest prosecution. People v. Kodlowski, 298 Mich. App. 647, 828 N.W.2d 67 (2012).*

There was [apparently] probable cause for plaintiff’s arrest and the impoundment of his car, so his Fourth Amendment claim fails. Philpott v. Weaver, 497 Fed. Appx. 667 (8th Cir. 2012).*

A Kansas ruse checkpoint led to a stop. The government argued that the defendants were not seized at the time of the stop, but the district court didn’t believe the trooper’s testimony because it was contradictory. Substantial evidence supported the district court’s findings of fact leading to suppression of the search. The stop was in Kansas and the indictment was in the Northern District of New York. United States v. Murphy, 703 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2012).*