“‘[T]he question … is whether [the officer] reasonably believed that he saw a traffic violation, not whether [the defendant] actually violated the [law].’ Cole, 21 F.4th at 428.” United States v. Yang, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 19125 (7th Cir. July 12, 2022).
Whether a Canadian seizure of documents and ultimate search in the United States violated the Fourth Amendment doesn’t matter here because it would be harmless error. United States v. Kachkar, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 19124 (11th Cir. July 12, 2022).
“Moreover, the record makes crystal clear that the officers honestly believed that Tubby was armed. Though the reasonableness inquiry under the Fourth Amendment is objective–and therefore subjective intentions and beliefs do not matter–the fact that so many officers all acted in accordance with the idea that Tubby was armed lends credence to the reasonableness of the belief that he was indeed armed. The veracity of this belief appears in many forms. … [one officer said] ‘I think he’s got a gun.’ The pair then proceeded to call in SWAT-trained personnel, who attempted to interact with Tubby only from the turret of an armored vehicle. And when Tubby finally exited the back of the squad car and rushed towards the sally port exit, video evidence shows Wernecke–the very officer who had originally searched Tubby at the time of his arrest–jumping over a wall for cover. At the same time, many other officers can be seen scrambling for cover with hands on their weapons. These are not the actions of officers who believe a suspect to be unarmed.” Doxtator v. O’Brien, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 19126 (7th Cir. July 12, 2022).*