Defendant was a passenger in a van owned by a family member and transporting his stuff. He had standing to challenge the stop and detention. The stop was admittedly valid, and the extension of 15 minutes was based on reasonable suspicion. United States v. Maldonado-Benitez, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189946 (D. Minn. Aug. 21, 2024), adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189437 (D. Minn. Oct. 18, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant didn\u2019t submit to the officers\u2019 show of authority, and he fled. That gave reasonable suspicion to detain him further. United States v. Lambert, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189628 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 18, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThus, even if the Government conducted FISA surveillance of the Defendant, and even if the Defendant were able to convince the Court, after an adversarial proceeding, that evidence at trial would be obtained or derived from such information, the next step would be an in camera, ex parte review of the evidence by the Court under 50 U.S.C. \u00a7 1806(f)\u2014in other words, a process substantially similar to the in camera, ex parte Conference that already happened in this case on July 23, 2024. And, on the basis of that Conference, the Court has already expressly held that \u2018there is no basis on which to believe or suspect that the rights of Defendant have been violated in any way with respect to any government activities authorized by FISA.\u2019 (ECF No. 143 at 3.) There is no reason to revisit that conclusion now.\u201d United States v. Russell, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189535 (D. Md. Oct. 17, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant was a passenger in a van owned by a family member and transporting his stuff. He had standing to challenge the stop and detention. The stop was admittedly valid, and the extension of 15 minutes was based on reasonable … Continue reading