CA8: Two specific 911 calls satisfied Navarette

Two 911 calls about erratic driving involving a black Volvo led to defendant’s stop, and that was sufficient for Navarette. While checking defendant’s license, the officer asked about his travel plans, and he said he came from California to help set up a pizza stand at the Iowa State Fair, except it wasn’t for about 10 days and the stop was in South Dakota. That was suspicious enough for a dog sniff. United States v. Gonzalez, 24-1324 (8th Cir. Apr. 4, 2025).

2255 petitioner’s guilty plea waived his Fourth Amendment claim. Smith v. United States, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 7830 (6th Cir. Apr. 2, 2025).*

“Viewing the remaining disputed facts in Ledbetter’s favor, as well as the factual underpinnings of the jury’s special verdict, Helmers was faced with a compliant, non-resisting felon who posed minimal threat to officers or the public. Helmers chose to body-slam that individual with catastrophic force without warning. Under those circumstances, a reasonable jury could find that choice was unreasonable. Because a reasonable jury could find those circumstances to be true, the district court should not have resolved Helmers’s qualified immunity motion on that ground.” Ledbetter v. Helmers, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 7819 (8th Cir. Apr. 3, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Qualified immunity, Reasonable suspicion, Waiver. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.