The government obtained defendant\u2019s cell phone passcode by questioning him. Despite the potential Fifth Amendment violation, the court finds that the cell phone would have been opened by the government\u2019s forensics team anyway, so inevitable discovery applies. United States v. Ahmad, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88794 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 22, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s stop may have been pretextual, but there was an objective basis for it. State v. Winslow, 2026 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 228 (Apr. 23, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cAfter independent review, the Court is satisfied that Judge Markovich’s recommendation is sound. Agent Ramirez provided several distinct factors that contributed to his decision to stop Defendant’s vehicle: Defendant was driving near the border on a route known for smuggling, he was behaving nervously and seemed to be hyper-focused on Agent Ramirez’s vehicle, and the vehicle had characteristics of vehicles that, in Agent Ramirez’s training and experience, are often used for smuggling (e.g., it was an older vehicle with temporary plates and looked to be weighed down). Under the totality of the circumstances, these factors gave rise to reasonable suspicion.\u201d United States v. Minfee, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85822 (D. Ariz. Apr. 20, 2026),* adopting 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57635 (D. Ariz. Mar. 19, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The government obtained defendant\u2019s cell phone passcode by questioning him. Despite the potential Fifth Amendment violation, the court finds that the cell phone would have been opened by the government\u2019s forensics team anyway, so inevitable discovery applies. United States v. … Continue reading