The officer well knew defendant and his vehicle. \u201cThat information, combined with his recognition of Bastin as he drove by him on the highway, was enough reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop, the Government contends. As for the pretext argument, the Government points out that the reasonableness of a traffic stop under the Fourth Amendment must be decided using an objective standard, not the officer’s actual purposes.\u201d United States v. Bastin, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37615 (N.D.Ind. Mar. 3, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This warrant was not overbroad. \u201cHere, the affiant set forth an itemized list of evidence relating to the crimes under investigation and a list of crimes. \u2026 Together, this provided objective standards to distinguish between items subject to seizure and not subject to seizure. \u2026 It told the officers they were limited to seizing items related to the enumerated criminal activity. Defendant Carillo Lopez’s arguments regarding other language such as \u2018or similar items\u2019 fails for the same reasons, and he does not provide authority to the contrary.\u201d United States v. Rodriguez, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36820 (W.D.Wash. Mar. 2, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The officer well knew defendant and his vehicle. \u201cThat information, combined with his recognition of Bastin as he drove by him on the highway, was enough reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop, the Government contends. As for the pretext … Continue reading