Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy against a CI recording him, so defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for not challenging it. United States v. Andasola, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190985 (D. Colo. Oct. 24, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The officer had reasonable suspicion to detain defendant for disorderly conduct. United States v. Tedlund, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191008 (D. Mont. Oct. 24, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIn this case, Trooper Wells had probable cause to arrest Scott when Scott failed to produce a driver’s license, failed to provide proof of insurance, and provided a false name. \u2026 The fact that Trooper Wells told Scott he was being detained as opposed to arrested is irrelevant for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment analysis.\u201d Established inventory procedures were followed. United States v. Scott, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191093 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 24, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The dog sniff did not extend the stop. State v. Johnson, 2023 Iowa App. LEXIS 817 (Oct. 25, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy against a CI recording him, so defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for not challenging it. United States v. Andasola, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190985 (D. Colo. Oct. 24, 2023).* The officer had reasonable suspicion … Continue reading