When an officer has probable cause for a stop and search, the Fourth Amendment doesn\u2019t require that it happen at the earliest possible time. It doesn’t become “stale” that fast, and here it was ongoing: driving on a suspended DL. [And, it can be delayed to see what else happens.] United States v. Harbach, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38363 (N.D. Iowa Feb. 25, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s trial objection to a second cell phone extraction was evidentiary foundation, not unreasonable search, so that\u2019s waived for appeal. State v. Augustus, 2026 La. App. LEXIS 369 (La. App. 5 Cir Feb. 25, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cDefendant finally argues that the State failed to prove specific intent. However, video footage of defendant’s statement demonstrated that it was at the moment Detective Gai asked defendant to unlock the phone so the search warrant could be performed that he threw it on the floor and destroyed it. These facts support a finding that defendant knew the cell phone was relevant to the investigation of his involvement with the homicide, and he intended to \u2018distort the results\u2019 by destroying the cell phone. Accordingly, we find that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction for obstruction of justice.\u201d State v. Hudson, 2026 La. App. LEXIS 365 (La. App. 5 Cir Feb. 25, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
When an officer has probable cause for a stop and search, the Fourth Amendment doesn\u2019t require that it happen at the earliest possible time. It doesn’t become “stale” that fast, and here it was ongoing: driving on a suspended DL. … Continue reading