\u201cDefendant cites no authority to the effect that a Fourth Amendment violation requires automatic dismissal of the indictment. Instead, he attempts to tie the alleged violations into his greater theory of outrageous government conduct under Rochin, Russell and Twigg. However, those cases deal with circumstances in which the government created the crime, they do not speak to Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. The second point to be made is that generally, Fourth Amendment violations result not in dismissal as is the prayer for relief here, but instead in suppression of the illegally obtained evidence.\u201d United States v. Cuevas-Hern\u00e1ndez, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207483 (D.P.R. Sep. 11, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s frisk during his traffic stop was reasonable. \u201cUnder the totality of the circumstances analysis, we conclude that the combination of (1) the timing and location of the traffic stop; (2) Garrison’s evasive action of rolling up his tinted windows and putting on a sweatshirt during the traffic stop; (3) his particularized nervous response to the question of whether he had a firearm on his person; and (4) his physical movements that obscured part of his waistband was sufficient to support the officer’s reasonable suspicion that he was armed and dangerous. Thus, we affirm the circuit court’s decision to deny the motion to suppress.\u201d Garrison v. Commonwealth, 2026 Va. App. LEXIS 487 (Sep. 15, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cDefendant cites no authority to the effect that a Fourth Amendment violation requires automatic dismissal of the indictment. Instead, he attempts to tie the alleged violations into his greater theory of outrageous government conduct under Rochin, Russell and Twigg. However, … Continue reading