\u201cIn this case, by contrast, there is no indication that law enforcement had a wealth of detailed information that was not reflected in the search warrant. The Premises Warrant was not required to provide more details regarding the specific electronic devices to be seized, because further details regarding the particulars of the electronic devices were not available.\u201d United States v. Ramos, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229903 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe fact that the officers told Burnett that he was detained and not under arrest is immaterial to whether a seizure of his person occurred under the Fourth Amendment. Once Burnett was handcuffed and told he was not free to leave, Burnett’s detention amounted to a de facto arrest and needed to be supported by probable cause.\u201d United States v. Burnett, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229454 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 23, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Reasonable suspicion supported extending this stop with a dog sniff. United States v. Edwards, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229596 (D.S.C. Dec. 20, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cIn this case, by contrast, there is no indication that law enforcement had a wealth of detailed information that was not reflected in the search warrant. The Premises Warrant was not required to provide more details regarding the specific electronic … Continue reading