CA9: State officers can consider federal crimes in assessing PC

The district court erred three ways in this case: The potential of a federal crime could be considered by the officer in determining probable cause. There was reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop. The automobile exception applied. United States v. Steinman, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5127 (9th Cir. Mar. 5, 2025).

Defendant staying in an Airbnb that he didn’t rent had standing, just like Olson. United States v. Cotto-Cruz, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40512 (D.P.R. Mar. 4, 2025).

The warrant was for defendant’s premises. Before execution of the warrant, officers called the issuing judge and asked about the car parked outside. That was orally included. Making no decision on the oral amendment, the warrant included cars on the premises under existing precedent, and there was probable cause as to the car for the automobile exception. State v. Cruz, 2025 Iowa App. LEXIS 204 (Mar. 5, 2025). [Think about it: an oral amendment violates the “four corners rule.”]

This entry was posted in Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion, Scope of search, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.