This late night stop was reasonably extended because the driver didn\u2019t have a DL on him and there appeared to be a digital scale on the floor. United States v. Henry, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115939 (D. Minn. May 20, 2020),* adopted, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115940 (D. Minn. June 29, 2020).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In a Manafort related fraud case, the affidavit for the search warrant of an iPhone showed probable cause on the remainder, even if there were misstatements in the details. United States v. Calk, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116013 (S.D. N.Y. July 1, 2020).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant doesn\u2019t tell the court why a motion to suppress should have been granted or that the exclusionary rule should have applied in the face of the good faith exception. United States v. Broadie, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116660 (E.D. Va. July 1, 2020).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
This late night stop was reasonably extended because the driver didn\u2019t have a DL on him and there appeared to be a digital scale on the floor. United States v. Henry, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115939 (D. Minn. May 20, … Continue reading