TN: RS didn’t develop to continue stop; second stop based on first suppressed

Defendant was subjected to two stops. The first was for suspicion of disorderly conduct, but no arrest was made and he was released because no further reasonable suspicion developed. A second stop was based on the first, and there still was no reasonable suspicion. State v. Smith, 2026 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 214 (Apr. 17, 2026).

The trial court abused its discretion in suppressing defendant’s statements made in his front yard while a search was going on inside his house. He was not in custody. State v. Russell, 2026 OK CR 15 (Apr. 16, 2026).*

Defendant claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for defense counsel not telling him that the same judge that denied the motion to suppress with adverse credibility determinations would be trying his bench trial. Denied. United States v. Murphy, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84139 (D.N.J. Apr. 16, 2026).*

Successor petitioner’s claim that he subsequently learned of allegedly new information to challenge his search is denied. He knew back in the beginning. In re Mendoza, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 10941 (11th Cir. Apr. 16, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Custody, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.