CA3: Def’s being a manager of premises gave RS as to him under PA law

Defendant’s status as the manager of a lounge gave reasonable suspicion to detain him under Pennsylvania law for what was going on inside. United States v. Burgess, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 7359 (3d Cir. Mar. 31, 2025).

Plaintiff’s civil Franks claim fails on qualified immunity after discovery. The statements were at worst reckless and not intentional nor material. de Leon v. Munoz, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 7424 (5th Cir. Mar. 31, 2025).*

“Thus, while ‘an “inchoate hunch” does not equate to reasonable suspicion, the Fourth Amendment only requires that police articulate some minimal, objective justification for an investigatory stop.’ United States v. Mosley, 878 F.3d 246, 251 (8th Cir. 2017) (citation and internal quotations omitted). [¶] The record before our Court demonstrates that Officers McCormick and Hayden had a reasonable articulable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop of Gaten at the Red Roof Inn.” United States v. Gaten, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59726 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 13, 2025),* adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58760 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 28, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.