The dog sticking his nose through the window was a search, but the officers already had probable cause by then. Therefore, no exclusionary. United States v. Newberry, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195271 (N.D. Iowa Oct. 28, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On the government\u2019s motion in limine, where defendant doesn\u2019t challenge the search, defendant is precluded from arguing that the investigation and search warrant wasn\u2019t complete. United States v. Montanez, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194605 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2024).* [I\u2019d say that\u2019s wrong because it tends to show that the police just assumed guilt.]<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2255 petitioner pleads that defense counsel was ineffective for not arguing a lack of probable cause for the warrant, but doesn\u2019t mention the good faith exception. He couldn\u2019t win on probable cause or the good faith exception. United States v. Harp, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194730 (W.D. La. Oct. 24, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Because a minor 16 or over can be cited for a seatbelt violation, the officer could ask for defendant\u2019s ID. Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 2024 Mass. App. LEXIS 146 (Oct. 28, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The dog sticking his nose through the window was a search, but the officers already had probable cause by then. Therefore, no exclusionary. United States v. Newberry, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195271 (N.D. Iowa Oct. 28, 2024). On the government\u2019s … Continue reading