Even if Missouri\u2019s window tint statute was unconstitutional, something in doubt, it wouldn\u2019t have any affect on the reasonableness of defendant\u2019s stop for violating it, and the exclusionary rule would not apply. Factually, the officer said he couldn\u2019t see into the car, and that\u2019s justification for the stop for excessive tint. United States v. Harwell, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76749 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 1, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
CJA counsel ably and exhaustively litigated defendant\u2019s suppression motion for a dog sniff for two days. She was not ineffective, and the outcome would not have been different. Davis v. United States, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76766 (D.S.C. Apr. 21, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Summary judgment was properly granted the deputy here because no force was used against the plaintiff until she reached behind her back toward her waistband which the deputy reasonably perceived was going for a weapon. Batyukova v. Doege<\/a>, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 11778 (5th Cir. Apr. 21, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pre-Jones warrantless GPS tracking would be saved by the good faith exception. Defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for raising a Jones issue two years before it was decided. United States v. Carter, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76918 (W.D. La. Apr. 20, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Even if Missouri\u2019s window tint statute was unconstitutional, something in doubt, it wouldn\u2019t have any affect on the reasonableness of defendant\u2019s stop for violating it, and the exclusionary rule would not apply. Factually, the officer said he couldn\u2019t see into … Continue reading