Defendant was on supervised release, and he was stopped for a traffic offense. The officer was admittedly courteous, but defendant still claims harassment as a reason to invoke the exclusionary rule. \u201c[T[he Court concludes that if the exclusionary \u2018may\u2019 apply when \u2018officers were harassing the defendant because of his supervised release status,\u2019 the \u2018harassment\u2019 must consist of more than the constitutional violation itself. To find otherwise would equate harassment with any unconstitutional search, which was plainly not the Alexander Court’s intent.\u201d United States v. Robinson, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177422 (M.D.Tenn. Sept. 17, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s abandonment of this car was a waiver of any reasonable expectation of privacy in it. United States v. Mills<\/a>, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 28143 (4th Cir. Sept. 16, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant was on supervised release, and he was stopped for a traffic offense. The officer was admittedly courteous, but defendant still claims harassment as a reason to invoke the exclusionary rule. \u201c[T[he Court concludes that if the exclusionary \u2018may\u2019 apply … Continue reading