\u201cDefendant was detained from approximately 4:45 a.m. until his release at around 7:00 a.m., a total duration of two hours and 15 minutes. \u2026 Having concluded that the initial detention was lawful, the Court must next address whether the detention was reasonable in length and scope. While facts support both sides of the argument, the two-hour timeline presents a close, borderline case because it exceeds the Tenth Circuit’s 90-minute reference point for investigative detentions and approaches a de facto arrest requiring probable cause. On balance, however, the Court leans toward the position that the detention remained constitutionally permissible.\u201d United States v. Morales-Aguirre, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175394 (D.N.M. Aug. 6, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There was probable cause and exigency for seizure of defendant\u2019s cell phone during a traffic stop in a drug investigation. The search warrant for the phone detailed the probable cause for its search. United States v. Veilleux, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176947 (D. Mont. Aug. 7, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2255 petitioner\u2019s Rule 60 motion that the court failed to consider his ineffective assistance of counsel on a Fourth Amendment claim is just wrong. It did. Benjamin v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176803 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 7, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cDefendant was detained from approximately 4:45 a.m. until his release at around 7:00 a.m., a total duration of two hours and 15 minutes. \u2026 Having concluded that the initial detention was lawful, the Court must next address whether the detention … Continue reading