A Montana state trooper\u2019s alleged violations of a cross deputization agreement with a tribe wasn\u2019t justification for exclusion of evidence from his stop of defendant. \u201cThe Court fails to make the connection between any constitutional violation whose remedy is suppression with Trooper Moon’s non-prejudicial violation of the 2000 CDA. The Tribes may take this violation into consideration when deciding whether to renew Trooper Moon’s commission. Trooper Moon’s failure to carry an identification card does not warrant suppression.\u201d United States v. Fowler, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13475 (D. Mont. Jan. 22, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWe conclude that Officer Green did not violate clearly established law when he allowed his police dog to remain on bite until Palmer had been handcuffed. Accordingly, we reverse.\u201d Palmer v. Santa Maria Police Dep’t<\/a>, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 1976 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A Montana state trooper\u2019s alleged violations of a cross deputization agreement with a tribe wasn\u2019t justification for exclusion of evidence from his stop of defendant. \u201cThe Court fails to make the connection between any constitutional violation whose remedy is suppression … Continue reading