The stop was concededly valid, and a warrant was found. Verifying that the warrant is still out is not an unreasonable extension of the stop. United States v. Colquhoun, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149487 (N.D. Iowa Aug. 21, 2024). [Defendant here complains that the government wanted it both ways, except it doesn\u2019t. The police were prudent in seeking to verify the warrant before arresting. We\u2019ve seen cases here where the warrant was bad or actually withdrawn and the defendant complains they didn\u2019t check it out. They did what they were supposed to do.]<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cDufour used unconstitutionally excessive force and that the violation of the Fourth Amendment was clearly established at the time of the incident. \u2026 Black argues that Dufour handcuffing him on the ground was excessive because it \u2018was a complete form of imprisonment.\u2019 But Black would have to allege more than a de minimis use of force to establish that Dufour’s actions rose to the level of a constitutional violation. \u2026 Although Dufour did hold Black at gunpoint, that threat of force was not a clearly established violation of the Fourth Amendment.\u201d Black v. Dufour, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 21126 (11th Cir. Aug. 21, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There was probable cause; so the Franks challenge is irrelevant. \u201cWhat matters is whether, based upon the uncontested portions of the affidavit, \u2018there [was] a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime [would] be found in\u2019 [the place searched]. \u2026 That standard easily was met on this record.\u201d United States v. Sawyers, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148323 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 20, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The stop was concededly valid, and a warrant was found. Verifying that the warrant is still out is not an unreasonable extension of the stop. United States v. Colquhoun, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149487 (N.D. Iowa Aug. 21, 2024). [Defendant … Continue reading