The officer seeing a firearm in the car on a traffic stop justified extending the detention. United States v. Cuba, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 244700 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 26, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Taking fingerprints during a lawful arrest is not a Fourth Amendment claim. \u201cThe Court likewise finds that neither the Fifth nor Sixth Amendments prohibits the compulsory collection of May’s fingerprint exemplars. The taking of fingerprints is non-testimonial and therefore falls outside the scope of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The Sixth Amendment is also not implicated because the taking of fingerprints is not a \u2018critical stage\u2019 of the criminal proceedings entitling a defendant to the presence of counsel.\u201d United States v. May, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 245530 (E.D. La. Oct. 27, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The protective sweep here was justified, and that led to a valid plain view. United States v. Galloway, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 245875 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 27, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The officer seeing a firearm in the car on a traffic stop justified extending the detention. United States v. Cuba, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 244700 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 26, 2026). Taking fingerprints during a lawful arrest is not a Fourth … Continue reading