Plaintiff\u2019s complaint that AT&T provided real time CSLI to Reno police without a search warrant states enough of a claim to proceed for now. Houston v. AT&T, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194789 (D. Nev. Oct. 26, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant was found to have consented to this search. Being mentally agitated by the situation isn\u2019t enough to show involuntariness. United States v. Bell, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193926 (W.D. Mo. Sep. 14, 2022),* adopted, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192993 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 24, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cHere the stop and all actions occurring before the officers developed probable cause to search the vehicle took place within eight minutes. The officers’ questions about the presence of illegal items in the car were appropriate and took place during the normal course of handling the traffic infraction. Under the cases cited by Khalaf, his traffic stop was not unreasonably prolonged in violation of the Fourth Amendment.\u201d United States v. Khalaf, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194122 (W.D. Va. Oct. 24, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Plaintiff\u2019s complaint that AT&T provided real time CSLI to Reno police without a search warrant states enough of a claim to proceed for now. Houston v. AT&T, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194789 (D. Nev. Oct. 26, 2022). Defendant was found … Continue reading