Officers had an admitted investigatory motive for stopping and searching defendant\u2019s car. They found a reason to impound it and conduct an inventory, and that was unreasonable here. United States v. Clayton, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80076 (E.D.Wis. May 3, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The affidavit for warrants here cannot be easily redacted. They shall remain under seal for up to a year, but they can be unsealed on proper application. In re Seized Prop., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79054 (D.S.C. Apr. 29, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The driver of a rental car with the permission of the renter has standing. \u201civen the holding in Eldridge, Officer Princivalli could believe that N.M., as the driver, had the authority to consent to the search of the vehicle; and his search did not violate Mr. Mitchell’s Fourth Amendment rights.\u201d In addition, there was probable cause for the vehicle search. United States v. Mitchell, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79782 (E.D.Mo. Apr. 6, 2022), adopted, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79041 (E.D. Mo. May 2, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Officers had an admitted investigatory motive for stopping and searching defendant\u2019s car. They found a reason to impound it and conduct an inventory, and that was unreasonable here. United States v. Clayton, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80076 (E.D.Wis. May 3, … Continue reading