E.D.Mich.: Seeing handgun reasonably led to handcuffing to see if def had permit on him

Officers suspected defendant was carrying a weapon, and they saw it as they approached. Under state law, he had to have the permit on him. “So, were the officers’ following actions (handcuffing Pettes and putting him in the squad car) ‘reasonably related’ to investigating whether Pettes was lawfully carrying a concealed weapon? Undoubtedly. These precautions enabled officers to investigate whether Pettes had a CPL in a safe and orderly manner.” United States v. Pettes, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224869 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 14, 2025).

State courts have the authority to get cell phone information across state lines. United States v. Wilnau, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225951 (D. Mont. Nov. 17, 2025).*

“Computers and related equipment” in the warrant includes cell phones. United States v. Kuhn, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225738 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 17, 2025).*

The protective sweep before the warrant arrived was reasonable and limited. “While the Court notes that the affidavit of probable cause attached to the first search warrant could have provided more details regarding the alleged previous narcotics activities of Mims, there are sufficient facts alleged to demonstrate probable cause that evidence of the crime would be found in a particular place.” United States v. Mims, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226932 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 18, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Computer and cloud searches, Protective sweep, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.