\u201cOfficer Nisivaco’s questions about the offense for which Carson was on parole and the recency of his gun offense were permissible, \u2018negligibly burdensome precautions\u2019 taken to ensure officer safety. Rodriguez, 575 U.S. at 356.\u201d Asking about whether he was up to date on his carry registration was also reasonable for officer safety. United States v. Carson, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 245221 (N.D.Ill. Dec. 22, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s 2255 doesn\u2019t show at all how defense counsel was ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress, let alone that it would be granted or would have been prejudicial to him. United States v. Ewell, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 244861 (N.D.Okla. Dec. 23, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s agitation during his justified traffic stop for missing a front license plate was reasonable suspicion. But the decision to tow the vehicle had already been made before the stop was allegedly unreasonably extended, so the extension doesn\u2019t matter. United States v. Leeper, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 245057 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cOfficer Nisivaco’s questions about the offense for which Carson was on parole and the recency of his gun offense were permissible, \u2018negligibly burdensome precautions\u2019 taken to ensure officer safety. Rodriguez, 575 U.S. at 356.\u201d Asking about whether he was up … Continue reading