CA8: While the driver wasn’t the owner with the suspended license, RS separately developed to continue the stop

The officer had reasonable suspicion that the owner of the vehicle had a suspended DL, but that dissipated when he saw the driver wasn’t the same gender as the owner. But, reasonable suspicion was developing the driver was under the influence. United States v. Behrens, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 18676 (8th Cir. July 28, 2025).

Plaintiff’s false arrest claim was barred by limitations. Wynn v. City of Covington, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 18663 (6th Cir. July 25, 2025).*

Despite alleged confusion whether the warrant subject was an iPhone 11 or 13 doesn’t matter. “To finish the search analysis, the Court concludes that the warrant execution is lawful. The agents search the exact item that the warrant describes: an ‘iPhone 13 Cell Phone Assigned Call Number 505-379-9756 WITH IMEI 350183980185078.’ iPhone 13 Warrant at 1. Summarizing the Court’s complete line of reasoning, the Court concludes that the warrant execution is lawful, because the warrant itself is sufficiently particular and the Jones Aff. provides probable cause to support the warrant.” United States v. Jessen, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142697 (D.N.M. July 25, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Reasonable suspicion, Warrant execution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.