CA11: There was PC to take def’s picture in public; seizure question moot

Regardless of whether defendant was seized, there was probable case to encounter him and take his picture in a public place. United States v. Daniels, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 7522 (11th Cir. Mar. 29, 2024).

Defendant wasn’t seized when he interacted with a law enforcement officer on a convenience store lot where it was all non-threatening and not coercive. Plenty of other people were around. United States v. Moten, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55625 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2024).*

This stop was justified. “Here, the dash-cam video clearly shows that Garcia gave unrestricted consent to search his vehicle after he had been Mirandized and being told he could refuse to consent. Although the dash-cam reflects that at some point Garcia withdrew his consent to search, it was untimely as by then the officers had already discovered the drugs. For these reasons, the defendant’s challenge of the search is denied.” United States v. Garcia, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56789 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 28, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Seizure. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.