The Sacramento Bee and defendant seek unsealing of search warrant materials in an extradition matter, but the motion is denied. Extradition is different than prosecution. If a criminal prosecution will result in the United States, and it still could, the case is still preindictment and that\u2019s another ground to deny. In re Ameen, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47391 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2019).<\/p>\n
\u201cFurther pertinent to the case and facts at hand, the Fourth Circuit has stated that a \u2018motorist stopped by police is obliged to endure ‘certain negligibly burdensome precautions’ that may not relate directly to the reason for the traffic stop, such as checking whether the driver has a criminal record or outstanding warrants.\u2019 United States v. Palmer, 820 F.3d 640, 651 (4th Cir. 2016) (quoting Rodriguez, 135 S. Ct. at 1616).\u201d United States v. Boley, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48120 (N.D. W.Va. Feb. 15, 2019).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Sacramento Bee and defendant seek unsealing of search warrant materials in an extradition matter, but the motion is denied. Extradition is different than prosecution. If a criminal prosecution will result in the United States, and it still could, the … Continue reading