Officers came to defendant\u2019s house without an arrest or search warrant to arrest him for a CSAM offense. He answered the door in his underwear. They asked about cell phone and saw it and seized it. Payton applies, and the phone is suppressed. There were no exigent circumstances, and the plain view exception can\u2019t be bootstrapped here. United States v. Miller, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212349 (S.D. W. Va. Sep. 18, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cTo be sure, the application presented a close call as to probable cause. But once the state court judge made that call, it was objectively reasonable for the officers to rely on it.\u201d United States v. Mayence, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211698 (W.D. La. Aug. 19, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe Court finds a stop occurred but reasonable suspicion existed. The characteristics of the area, proximity to the border, information about the vehicle, usual pattern of local traffic, time of day, and behavior of the vehicle, together with reasonable inferences of an experienced Border Patrol agent, support BPA Brown’s reasonable suspicion that this vehicle had traveled from Phoenix to a pickup area, had picked up illegal aliens, and was traveling back to Phoenix or elsewhere with its passengers.\u201d United States v. Florendo, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212272 (D. Ariz. Aug. 25, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Officers came to defendant\u2019s house without an arrest or search warrant to arrest him for a CSAM offense. He answered the door in his underwear. They asked about cell phone and saw it and seized it. Payton applies, and the … Continue reading