E.D.Mo.: Constitutionality of window tint statute doesn’t have anything to do with PC for a stop for overtinting

Even if Missouri’s window tint statute was unconstitutional, something in doubt, it wouldn’t have any affect on the reasonableness of defendant’s stop for violating it, and the exclusionary rule would not apply. Factually, the officer said he couldn’t see into the car, and that’s justification for the stop for excessive tint. United States v. Harwell, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76749 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 1, 2021).*

CJA counsel ably and exhaustively litigated defendant’s suppression motion for a dog sniff for two days. She was not ineffective, and the outcome would not have been different. Davis v. United States, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76766 (D.S.C. Apr. 21, 2021).*

Summary judgment was properly granted the deputy here because no force was used against the plaintiff until she reached behind her back toward her waistband which the deputy reasonably perceived was going for a weapon. Batyukova v. Doege, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 11778 (5th Cir. Apr. 21, 2021).*

Pre-Jones warrantless GPS tracking would be saved by the good faith exception. Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for raising a Jones issue two years before it was decided. United States v. Carter, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76918 (W.D. La. Apr. 20, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Excessive force, Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception, GPS / Tracking Data, Ineffective assistance. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.