MI: Officer seeing def drunk an hour before he was driving was a reasonable conclusion

The district court erred in suppressing by finding no probable cause for a stop. “Because we conclude that Officer Prater’s observations of defendant in a drunken state no more than one hour before the stop furnished the officer with reasonable suspicion to stop defendant’s vehicle, we reverse the orders of suppression and dismissal, and we remand the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” People v. Anderson, 2025 Mich. App. LEXIS 10408 (Dec. 23, 2025) (2-1).*

Having lawfully seized plaintiff’s cell phone but not seeking a warrant for it for days didn’t state a claim for relief. Langham v. Noyd, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 33559 (9th Cir. Dec. 23, 2025).*

Defendant was in a taxi stopped for a traffic violation and raw marijuana was smelled. A loose cell phone was on the floor and no one claimed it. There was no reasonable expectation of privacy in that phone. State v. Smith, 2025-Ohio-5752 (4th Dist. Dec. 9, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Plain view, feel, smell, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.