E.D.Tenn.: Traffic stop with shots fired call led to valid protective sweep of car for weapon on RS

“After reviewing the evidence, the arguments of the parties, and the relevant law, the undersigned finds that the officers had both probable cause to believe Defendant had committed traffic violations and reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle in connection with the ‘shots-fired’ report. The undersigned further finds that the officers properly conducted a protective search of Defendant’s vehicle, and would have inevitably discovered the firearm, bullets, and casing during an inventory search. The undersigned therefore recommends the District Judge DENY Defendant’s suppression motion [Doc. 76].” United States v. Reece, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38709 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 25, 2026).

“Rowe’s Fourth Amendment Motion to Suppress is denied in its entirety because Officers Church and Feltner had probable cause to initiate the traffic stop based on Rowe’s speed and tinted windows; detained Rowe incidental to the traffic stop and had probable cause to search his car due to the odor of marijuana; and therefore the evidence obtained from his car is not fruit of the poisonous tree.” United States v. Rowe, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38022 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 24, 2026).*

Defendant abandoned his satchel by throwing it over a fence when confronted by the police about its contents. Grant v. United States, 2026 D.C. App. LEXIS 69 (Feb. 26, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Abandonment, Plain view, feel, smell, Protective sweep. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.