The attachment to a warrant can provide particularity. While one ground to suppress was mostly litigated, it was apparent the other ground wasn\u2019t waived or abandoned. Commonwealth v. Young, 2022 PA Super 220 (Dec. 23, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cHere, the record demonstrates that the deputies who conducted the sweep watched an armed known gang member enter Nunez’s house, heard a commotion inside the house, and saw the gang member leave without the weapon. Subsequently, two other gang members left the house, and those two individuals could not confirm to the deputies whether anyone else was in the house. Based on these specific and articulable facts, the deputies had a reasonable belief that there may have been people in the home who had access to at least one firearm and thus posed a threat to the deputies’ safety. [\u00b6] Further, the deputies did not exceed the permissible scope of the protective sweep because they only briefly and cursorily searched the home, including Nunez’s bedroom.\u201d United States v. Nunez, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 35555 (9th Cir. Dec. 23, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In a DL suspension proceeding, the fact defendant spun his tires for 3-4 seconds didn\u2019t violate the statute at issue, so there was no reasonable suspicion for his stop. Garner v. Kan. Dep’t of Revenue<\/a>, 2022 Kan. App. LEXIS 46 (Dec. 23, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n In a driver\u2019s license suspension proceeding, reasonable suspicion supports the ALJ\u2019s findings the stop was justified. Autery v. Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 9373 (Tex. App. \u2013 Beaumont Dec. 22, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The attachment to a warrant can provide particularity. While one ground to suppress was mostly litigated, it was apparent the other ground wasn\u2019t waived or abandoned. Commonwealth v. Young, 2022 PA Super 220 (Dec. 23, 2022).* \u201cHere, the record demonstrates … Continue reading