NY2: Stopping car for flashing headlights was properly taken as a possible distress call; but stop was excessive

Defendant’s flashing his high beams at a patrol car was legitimately taken as a likely distress call, but the state failed to prove there was any distress, so the continued questioning was unreasonable. People v. Serrano, 2024 NY Slip Op 03833, 2024 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3884 (2d Dept. July 17, 2024).

“Because the warrant limited the search to the use of digital evidence connected to the alleged crimes as described in an incorporated affidavit, it met the specificity requirements of the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Kinney, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 17659 (9th Cir. July 18, 2024).*

The smell of raw marijuana was probable cause here. Aldama v. State, 2024 Fla. App. LEXIS 5591 (Fla. 3d DCA July 17, 2024).*

“Here, the affidavit at issue is not so conclusory or lacking in indicia of probable cause as to qualify as ‘bare bones.’” Thus, the good faith exception applies. United States v. Barrow, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126289 (N.D. Tex. July 17, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Digital Searches, Good faith exception, Particularity, Plain view, feel, smell. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.