The search warrant here was based on an unconstitutional prior entry to photograph firearms, and the issuing magistrate wasn\u2019t told about that. That was material. Motion to suppress granted. United States v. Mahama, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145463 (D. Conn. Aug. 15, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Seeing the handle of an AR-15 protruding below defendant\u2019s book bag justified a stop without even having to consider that he \u201cpossessed a permit to carry legally a weapon concealed on his person. The contention that there may not have been any outwardly visible criminal activity in progress before the officers’ approach is immaterial to the legality of that initial approach because, contrary to the defendant’s position, police are not required to have reasonable suspicion of a crime merely to approach a citizen in a public place and ask him questions. Florida v. Bostick \u2026.\u201d United States v. Grant, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144893 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 13, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Officers had information that a person wanted with a warrant was in a hotel room. Four went for a knock-and-talk. Defendant, who was not the wanted person, answered the door and didn\u2019t say who she was, but it was apparent she wasn\u2019t the person wanted. Officers saw furtive movement of another person behind her, and that created exigency to enter. United States v. Grant, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144893 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 13, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The search warrant here was based on an unconstitutional prior entry to photograph firearms, and the issuing magistrate wasn\u2019t told about that. That was material. Motion to suppress granted. United States v. Mahama, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145463 (D. Conn. … Continue reading