\u201cHere, the uncontested facts justify a protective sweep of the hotel room. Detective Holmes testified that at the time of Defendant’s arrest, there was still a suspect in the armored truck robbery at-large whose whereabouts were unknown. \u2026 As such, the arresting officers had reasonable and articulable suspicion that the hotel room harbored a dangerous individual, justifying the sweep. See Buie, 494 U.S. at 334. In so doing, the officers were permitted to search the area \u2018from which an attack could be immediately launched.\u2019 Id. Thus, evidence located in \u2018plain view\u2019 during the sweep need-not be suppressed.\u201d United States v. Montalvo-Flores, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77482 (D.N.J. Apr. 22, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ten day delay in presentment of a non-citizen arrested on the high seas was not unreasonable. United States v. Taborda-Reales, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77416 (D.P.R. Apr. 20, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff\u2019s argument that the 17 year old complaining witness\u2019s statement was unreliable and self-serving and thus didn\u2019t show probable cause is rejected. Jackson v. Marion Police Dep’t, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77580 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 22, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cHere, the uncontested facts justify a protective sweep of the hotel room. Detective Holmes testified that at the time of Defendant’s arrest, there was still a suspect in the armored truck robbery at-large whose whereabouts were unknown. \u2026 As such, … Continue reading