Motion for return of property seized five weeks ago is denied. The government will image electronics and return them. That which is subject to forfeiture has to await it. United States v. Wells, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168017 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2019).<\/p>\n
Officer\u2019s observation that defendant was combative and argumentative when first stopped, and the officer confirmed from EPIC that defendant had been armed before was shown on body camera and was credible. That formed a basis for lengthening the detention. United States v. Fuchs, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168515 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 30, 2019).*<\/p>\n
The legality of the arrest doesn\u2019t always preclude admission of evidence. Here, it was in plain view and is admissible. State v. Buckley<\/a>, 2019-Ohio-3991, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 4056 (11th Dist. Sept. 30, 2019).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Motion for return of property seized five weeks ago is denied. The government will image electronics and return them. That which is subject to forfeiture has to await it. United States v. Wells, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168017 (D. Nev. … Continue reading