CA7: Stop at night in a high crime area and furtive movements justified protective sweep of car

Defendant was stopped in a high crime area at night, and his furtive movements in the car justified a protective sweep of the car. United States v. Erving, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 1377 (7th Cir. Jan. 20, 2026).*

Defendant’s car was searched under a warrant and the alleged false statements weren’t material. The automobile exception could be applicable but isn’t even decided. United States v. Conner, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 1296 (6th Cir. Jan. 15, 2026).*

Defendant consented to a search of a sunglasses case by a social worker in the house. That eliminated any expectation of privacy in it, and then a police officer could search it, too. State v. Mogren, 2026 ND 2 (Jan. 15, 2026).*

A broken taillight at night is justification for a stop. United States v. Briggs, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8972 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 16, 2026).*

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

Comments are closed.