Checking on the outstanding warrants on the occupants of the car reasonably extended the stop. United States v. Hamlet, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76568 (N.D. W.Va. May 2, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Presence of drugs in one\u2019s car doesn\u2019t make probable cause to search his house. Being in a drug trafficking operation, however, might add up to probable cause for the house. Stewart v. United States, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75936 (S.D. Ind. May 2, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The government got a warrant for defendant\u2019s phone for robbery of a federally licensed firearm dealer. They didn\u2019t seek evidence of other crimes, but they found evidence linking defendant to a robbery of a T-Mobile store, brought in federal court as a Hobbs Act violation. The government disclosed the oversight. There was substantial other evidence linking defendant to the T-Mobile robbery once they figured out his identity. The government\u2019s conduct was not sufficiently intentional to warrant applying the exclusionary rule. United States v. Bell, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76330 (E.D. Mich. May 2, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Checking on the outstanding warrants on the occupants of the car reasonably extended the stop. United States v. Hamlet, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76568 (N.D. W.Va. May 2, 2023).* Presence of drugs in one\u2019s car doesn\u2019t make probable cause to … Continue reading