\u201cThe Government, however, also provided evidence that the vehicle is not titled to Duncan and had a stolen license plate, arguing that these facts in conjunction establish that while Duncan possessed the vehicle, there is nothing to suggest he did so lawfully.\u201d There was mail in the car that belonged to defendant, but that\u2019s not enough for standing. Aside from that, there was probable cause to search it. United States v. Duncan, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38436 (E.D. La. Mar. 8, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This stop was based on reasonable suspicion but it escalated quickly to an arrest without probable cause. The incriminating evidence should have been suppressed. State v. Maahs, 2023 Ida. LEXIS 25 (Mar. 7, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff\u2019s search and seizure and privacy claim wasn\u2019t fleshed out in the complaint, and it was properly dismissed without prejudice. Black v. Russell, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 5480 (10th Cir. Mar. 8, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cThe Government, however, also provided evidence that the vehicle is not titled to Duncan and had a stolen license plate, arguing that these facts in conjunction establish that while Duncan possessed the vehicle, there is nothing to suggest he did … Continue reading