\u201cTo the contrary, this testimony confirms only that Agent Evans’s forensic examination was circumscribed by the legal boundaries of the search warrant. Cox’s attempt to equate the examiner’s adherence to those boundaries with a failure to uncover exculpatory evidence is a logical non sequitur; the ex post argument\u2014that the examiner’s failure to search for viruses or other files that would negate Cox’s intent constitutes forensic malpractice\u2014is exactly the kind of \u2018undeveloped assertion[]\u2019 that the Eleventh Circuit has held insufficient to satisfy Moore. \u2026\u201d Cox v. Jones, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90829 (M.D. Ala. Apr. 24, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s stop was for an object hanging from the rearview mirror. When the officer got to the car, reasonable suspicion for marijuana use developed: a baggie on the floor and the look like the driver had recently consumed. United States v. Hallmon, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 11674 (8th Cir. Apr. 24, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant passenger had no standing to contest the search of the glove compartment of the car he was riding in. United States v. Cubias, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90807 (N.D. Okla. Apr. 23, 2026).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cTo the contrary, this testimony confirms only that Agent Evans’s forensic examination was circumscribed by the legal boundaries of the search warrant. Cox’s attempt to equate the examiner’s adherence to those boundaries with a failure to uncover exculpatory evidence is … Continue reading