Defendant seeks return of things of potential evidentiary value. The government opposes on the ground that a 2255 has not yet been filed, and the things might still have value. That\u2019s reasonable for the court. United States v. Saldivar, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210241 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2019).<\/p>\n
\u201cWhether, on the particular facts of this case, the deputy had reasonable suspicion that Pagoaga-Rios violated \u00a7 545.363, is not readily resolved by reference to Texas law. See Lopez-Moreno, 420 F.3d at 430; see also Delafuente v. State, 414 S.W.3d 173, 178 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). [\u00b6] However, we need not reach that question, because even if the deputy erred in determining that he had a legal basis to stop Pagoaga-Rios, his mistake of law can \u2018give rise to the reasonable suspicion necessary to uphold the seizure under the Fourth Amendment,\u2019 if it was objectively reasonable. See Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530, 534, 539 (2014).\u201d United States v. Pagoaga-Rios<\/a>, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 36154 (5th Cir. Dec. 4, 2019).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant seeks return of things of potential evidentiary value. The government opposes on the ground that a 2255 has not yet been filed, and the things might still have value. That\u2019s reasonable for the court. United States v. Saldivar, 2019 … Continue reading