Defendant was stopped for a warrant for violation of the terms of his supervised release. A search incident of his car was permissible under Gant. United States v. Briggs, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 242751 (W.D. La. Oct. 22, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant is charged with theft by shoplifting from a military base exchange. The government argues a lack of standing in what was stolen where a pants pocket was searched. The lack of standing here, however, depends on fraud or theft which is to be proved at trial, not a suppression hearing. United States v. \u00c1lvarez, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 242580 (D.P.R. Oct. 21, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When defendant was arrested, a firearm he had was cleared for officer safety, and bullets and a spring came out. Defendant challenges admissibility under F.R.E. 104 [that\u2019s a new one on me; that\u2019s a chain of custody issue which is weight, not admissibility]. Denied. It\u2019s not materially different. United States v. Fuller, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 242606 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 22, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant was stopped for a warrant for violation of the terms of his supervised release. A search incident of his car was permissible under Gant. United States v. Briggs, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 242751 (W.D. La. Oct. 22, 2026). Defendant … Continue reading