Seizure of defendant\u2019s Apple watch was valid incident to arrest because officers feared he could erase his iPhone with it. The traffic stop might have been pretextual, but it doesn\u2019t matter because defendant had an arrest warrant on a federal indictment pending. As to a Franks challenge, defendant fails in his offer of proof. United States v. Avery, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177942 (E.D. Mo. July 2, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant was stopped for driving his rental car too long in the passing lane. The car smelled of burnt marijuana. On the totality, including defendant\u2019s priors for drugs, the officer had reasonable suspicion to continue the stop because he suspected defendant was carrying drugs between Harrisburg and Lancaster. Commonwealth v. Gould, 2026 Pa. Super. LEXIS 420 (Aug. 10, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s stop for a traffic offense was reasonable because there was a factual basis, no matter the officer\u2019s motivation. Then reasonable suspicion developed. United States v. Billips, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176422 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 7, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Seizure of defendant\u2019s Apple watch was valid incident to arrest because officers feared he could erase his iPhone with it. The traffic stop might have been pretextual, but it doesn\u2019t matter because defendant had an arrest warrant on a federal … Continue reading