\u201cMaybe thirteen officers were not needed. Maybe the officers did not need to carry and display rifles. Maybe fewer vehicles could have been used to block Defendant’s vehicle. Maybe officers did not have to place Defendant in handcuffs because their weapons were pointed at him and were not holstered until his vehicle was cleared. The Court declines to indulge in unrealistic second-guessing here.\u201d United States v. Chavez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120656 (W.D. Tex. June 24, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Officers putting in an affidavit that other charges were pending against the target was accurate as far as they knew, although it turned out that those charges had been dismissed. No Franks violation. United States v. Gamon, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120092 (M.D. Pa. June 25, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cGiven the Court is under no obligation to review objections that are merely reiterations of arguments already presented to and reviewed by the Magistrate Judge, defendant’s objection here is OVERRULED.\u201d United States v. Partin, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120701 (E.D. Tenn. June 25, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cMaybe thirteen officers were not needed. Maybe the officers did not need to carry and display rifles. Maybe fewer vehicles could have been used to block Defendant’s vehicle. Maybe officers did not have to place Defendant in handcuffs because their … Continue reading