It doesn\u2019t matter that DTF officers were on the interstate and ordered defendant\u2019s stop for a window tint violation because there was objective justification for it. The rest of the stop was with reasonable suspicion for the drug dog. United States v. Jackson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 270126 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 18, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This involves a warrant for a package sought by the Postal Inspectors executed the same day. The failure of the warrant to specify when it should be executed by, Rule 41 says in 14 days, doesn\u2019t void the warrant. United States v. Odubajo, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3968 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 9, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
No malicious prosecution claim for pretrial detention under a judicial order issued on probable cause. Besosa-Noceda v. Torres, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 319 (1st Cir. Jan. 7, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The information as a whole shows probable cause. (The court alludes to Franks, but it\u2019s not remotely an issue.) State v. Starkey, 2026-Ohio-42 (5th Dist. Jan. 8, 2026).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
It doesn\u2019t matter that DTF officers were on the interstate and ordered defendant\u2019s stop for a window tint violation because there was objective justification for it. The rest of the stop was with reasonable suspicion for the drug dog. United … Continue reading